TEXT-BOOKS BY
REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S.J.
PUBLISHED BY
SCHWARTZ, KIRWIN & FAUSS
A BRIEF TEXT-BOOK OF LOGIC ANDMENTAL PHILOSOPHY.
A BRIEF TEXT-BOOK OF MORAL PHI
LOSOPHY.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.
A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH RHETORIC.
THE ART OF ORATORICAL COMPOSI
TION.
a. as. D. <s.
A BRIEF
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
BY
REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S.J.,AUTHOR OF BRIEF TEXT-BOOKS ON LOGIC AND METAPHYSICS, ETHICS, ORATORY,
RHETORIC, THE SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, AHDLECTURES ON MORAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDICAL PRACTICE.
NEW YORK
SCHWARTZ, KIRWIN & FAUSS42 BARCLAY STREET
PREFACE.
Having composed and published brief text-books on
Logic, Metaphysics and Ethics, which have obtained a
considerable circulation in Colleges and Academies, the
author of this little volume has frequently been urgedto complete the series by adding an equally brief synopsis of the History of Philosophy. Many learned works
on this subject are before the public; but they are mostlyin foreign languages or written in a spirit alien, if not
hostile, to Catholic thought. And yet, as the Catholic
Church stands alone in its permanent strength and
grandeur among the hundreds of religions in the world,
so too its Philosophy is preeminent among the countless
speculations of ancient and modern times.
There is, however, this difference, that the Church s
infallibility in teaching religion is a supernatural endow
ment, given to it and maintained in it by its Divine
Founder, Jesus Christ; whereas Catholic philosophers,
like all others, derive their doctrines directly from hu
man reason, but they are usually guarded from important errors by their knowledge of Revelation.
For more advanced students there exist in Englishtwo excellent works: Dr. Albert StoeckFs "Handbook
of the History of Philosophy," translated by Father T.
A. Finlay, S. J., and Dr. William Turner s "History of
Philosophy." But the translation of the former is still
incomplete and neither of them is elementary enoughfor mere beginners. These will either leave the subject
severely alone, as they now usually do, or they must
struggle under excessive difficulties, unless a much eas-
iv Preface.
ier and briefer text-book be provided, such as our sum
mary is intended to be.
, An elementary treatise like this may also be found
useful and interesting for many persons of mature agewho have never enjoyed the advantages of thorough
studies, and who yet desire to acquire correct views on
the ordinary speculations of the learned, or at least to
know what leaders and what currents of thought they can
securely follow, and of what dangers they should beware.
If the presentation of the subject in these pages is very
elementary, as it is acknowledged to be, the uncommon
brevity and simplicity aimed at are pleaded in excuse.
This brevity has been especially studied in the earliest
portions of the history, because the theories explained
in them are so crude and obviously false that the knowl
edge of their fuller details seems to be of little profit to
the youthful mind. In such matters to make a judi
cious selection of what should be presented and what
omitted is as important as it is difficult.
There is still another useful purpose which this com
pendium may serve, namely as a collection of syllabi of
such lectures on the History of Philosophy as are given
to more advanced students in Colleges and Universities.
For such intent a comprehensive brevity is a very de
sirable feature.
The Author.
St. Ignatius College, Chicago, 111.
July 12, 1909.
TABLE OP CONTENTS.
PAQB
PREFACE iii
INTRODUCTORY vii
PART I. PRE-CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY.
Section I. Philosophy of the Eastern Nations.
CHAPTER I. India: 3
Article I. Brahmanism 3
II. Buddhism 4
CHAPTER II. Persia 7
CHAPTER III. China .9CHAPTER IV. Egypt and Western Asia . . . . 11
Section II. Greek Philosophy.
CHAPTER I. The Period of Preparation: .... 15
Article I. The Ionic Philosophers ... 15
II. The Pythagoreans . . . . 18"
III. The Eleatics ...,. 19"
IV. The Sophists ...... 20 .
CHAPTER II. The Period of Perfection: . . . . 22
Article I. Socrates 22"
II. Imperfect Followers of Socrates . . 24"
III. Plato . . . .;".. 25"
IV. Aristotle . . ... . . 29
CHAPTER III. The Period of Decay: 36
Article I. Stoicism . ... . . . 36"
II. Epicurean Philosophy .... 38"
III. Scepticism 39"
IV. Eclecticism 40
vi Table of Contents.
Section III. Philosophy of Rome and Alexandria.PAGE
CHAPTER I. Philosophy of Rome 42
CHAPTER II. The Alexandrian Schools .... 45
Article I. The Grseco-Jewish Schools ... 45"
II. The Graeco-Oriental Schools . . 48
PART II. PHILOSOPHY OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA.
Section I. Patristic Philosophy.
CHAPTER I. The Anti-Nicene Fathers .... 57
CHAPTER II. The Post-Nicene Fathers .... 60
Section II. Medieval Philosophy.
CHAPTER I. The Period of Formation .... 66
CHAPTER II. Growth of Scholasticism .... 69
CHAPTER III. Perfection of Scholasticism ... 76
CHAPTER IV. Decline of Scholasticism .... 81
Section III. Modern Philosophy.
CHAPTER I. The Transition Period .... 86
CHAPTER II. From Descartes to Kant: .... 92
Article I. Cartesianism 92"
II. Confusion Consequent on Cartesianism 94"
III. The Idealistic Movement ... 98
CHAPTER III. From Kant to Our Own Time: . . . 101
Article I. German Philosophy .... 101"
II. Scottish Philosophy . . . .111III. French Philosophy . . . .112IV. English Philosophy . . . .116V. Philosophy in America . . . 122
" VI. Italian and Spanish Philosophy . 127"
VII. Neo-Scholastic Philosophy . . 131
A List of Select Works on Philosophy . . . 138
ALPHABETICAL INDEX 141
INTRODUCTORY.
1. The history of philosophy is the history of the ef
forts made by the human mind to reach by discursive
thought the deepest reasons of all things; that is, to un
derstand their intimate nature, their first causes and
their ultimate destinies.
We are not to suppose that men in the earliest ages
were in total ignorance on these important matters. Onthe contrary, we find that many of the most remote tra
ditions of the human race, as traced by students of an
tiquity among various nations, were much nobler and
more conformable to the truth than some doctrines in
vented by philosophers in later times. But those pri
meval teachings were remnants of the original revelation
made directly by the Creator to our first parents. As
such they do not strictly belong to philosophy, because
this science embraces only such knowledge as is attained
by natural reason.
2. Yet it is important to note the existence of this
primitive teaching ;for it sets aside the modern scientific
speculations of those who love to describe the first menas savages but little elevated above the brute beasts;
as is done, for instance, by Dr. Blair, in his well-known
lectures on rhetoric (Lect. VI). The facts of history are
at variance with such theories. "It cannot be denied,"
writes Frederick von Schlegel in his" Esthetic and Mis
cellaneous Works" (p. 71), "that the early Indian pos-
viii Introductory.
sessed a knowledge of the true God. All their writings
are replete with sentiments and expressions noble, clear
and severely grand, as deeply conceived and as rever
entially expressed as in any human language in which
men have spoken of their God."
The possession of the highest truths by our early an
cestors is more fully explained and proved by the Rev.
Augustus J. Thebaud, S.J., in his learned work entitled" Gentilism Religion Previous to Christianity"; for in
stance on pages 30-39, 290, 494, etc. On page 139 he
quotes from William Jones s" Extracts from the Vedas"
as follows:" Without hand or foot, He (God) runs rapidly
and grasps firmly; without eyes He sees, without ears Hehears all; He knows whatever can be known, and there is
none who knows Him; Him the wise call the great, su
preme, pervading Spirit."
3. The original tradition of revealed truth was in the
course of ages gradually obscured and mixed with manyerrors, so that the remnants of it were no longer sufficient
to satisfy the thoughtful mind. Then began various
speculations on the nature and the origin of the world,
giving rise to philosophic systems. The study of these is
our task.
In almost all of them errors were blended with the
truth. Now errors are not worth knowing for their ownsake
;but the study of errors enables us to understand the
truth more distinctly, and aids us to appreciate it more
highly, just as shading in a picture enhances by contrast
the light and beauty of the more important features.
Therefore, though the Scholastic system, taught in Cath
olic colleges and universities generally, presents the best
answers that human reason has so far given to the great
Introductory. ix
questions of the mind, still we derive from the study of
other systems a clearer understanding of our own sys
tem, and we rest with increased satisfaction in the en
joyment of the treasure we therein possess.
Besides, this study is highly interesting, and it evokes
a vigorous exercise of our mental powers. It is interest
ing, because it exhibits to our eyes nobler struggles than
those of warriors, and more important discoveries than
those made by travelers and explorers. It evokes a
vigorous exercise of our mental powers, both in striving
to understand many lofty and keen speculations of hu
man thought, and in drawing the line of demarkation be
tween what is true and what is false, what is certain and
what is doubtful in their various systems.4. The history of philosophy is obviously to be divided
into two periods, the one antecedent and the other sub
sequent to the diffusion of the Christian revelation. For
Christianity, when it arose, poured forth such a flood of
light upon the great questions of the soul that philosophyin consequence underwent a vast transformation. Thedifference between these two divisions of philosophy is
thus described by Dr. Albert Stoeckl in his" Handbook
of the History of Philosophy," translated by Rev. T. A.
Finlay, S. J.: "Christ is the central point of all history.
His coming into the world has been called by the ApostleThe fullness of time. He was the scope and the con
summation of the times that preceded Him; He was the
point of departure for the time that followed; for the
events that filled it have been hallowed by the redemption He effected. For the Christian all history is thus
divided into two great periods; and, with the rest, the
history of philosophy. This view is in strict accordance
Introductory.
with the facts of the case. The philosophy which preceded and that which followed Christ differ more widelyin character than the philosophies of any of the periods
subordinate to these. The world has never witnessed
such a revolution in human thought, such an enlarge
ment of the range of human knowledge as that effected
by the introduction of Christianity," etc.
PART I.
PRE-CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY.
5. This part comprises three portions, regarding re
spectively: 1. The philosophy of the Eastern nations,
2. That of the Greeks, and 3. Roman and Alexandrian
philosophy, down to the diffusion of Christianity.
SECTION I.
PHILOSOPHY OF THE EASTERN NATIONS.
CHAPTEK I.
INDIA.
Two systems of philosophy obtained each a strong
footing in India, Brahmanism and Buddhism. Both of
them are intimately connected with the religions of their
followers, from which they can scarcely be separated.
ARTICLE I. BRAHMANISM.
6. Brahmanism is the most ancient system of philos
ophy of which any record exists in the world s history.
Its sacred writings are called Vedas. Some of its teach
ings are supposed to have been conceived 1600 years be
fore Christ, though they may not have been committed
to writing till about 400 B.C. Composed by different
authors and at various times, they exhibit various phil
osophic speculations.
There are four Vedas, each containing two parts, prayers and doctrines. They are attributed to Vyasa; but,
as this name means a compiler, it creates the presumptionthat they are the work of several authors. They teach
sublime doctrines concerning God, the human soul, a fu
ture life, etc.; but mixed with these are gross errors of
various kinds. The Brahmans worshiped a kind of
Trinity called Trimurti. The first being, Brahma, buried
first in deep sleep, was from eternity absorbed in self-
contemplation.3
4 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
His awaking from his slumbers gives existence to in
dividual objects, which are said to emanate from him.
Thus he becomes the cause, but not properly the creator
of the world. For he does not produce the world out of
nothing, but out of his own substance. As the sustain
ing power of things, he is called Vishnu; and the vari
ous incarnations of Vishnu are the subject of the sacred
books. As the destroying power, he is styled Siva or Shiva.
Everything returns again into Brahma, the absolute
unity. The system is called the system of Emanation.
The ethics of Brahmanism teaches that it is the duty of
man to strive after reunion with Brahma by sacrifice,
penance and the contemplation of the supreme unity.
Whatever soul fails to reach this perfection during life
must migrate after death into some other body till it
reaches that union Those who had reached it were in
later ages honored as gods. This doctrine of Metempsychosis, or migration of souls, is common to most Oriental
nations, even to the present day.In this system all the universe is only a modification
of Brahma, just as the same substance is water at one
time, then becomes vapor and then snow or ice; the sys
tem is one of real pantheism, everything being one sub
stance with God. Yet some interpreters consider the
emanations as really distinct from Brahma, as the web is
distinct from the spider that spins it.
ARTICLE II. BUDDHISM.
7. Buddhism is a still more pernicious error than the
preceding. It arose much later; some say about the year
1000, others about 500 B.C. It seems to have originated
in India. At the beginning of the Christian era it lay
India. 5
like an incubus on Thibet, China, Ceylon, the whole
Western peninsula of India, on Tartary and Northern
Asia. It has remained in most of those regions to the
present day, but modernized by agnosticism, and ad
mitting national gods as incarnations of Buddha. (Cath.
Missions, February, 1908.)
The author of that system is said to have been Sakja-
Muni, the first Buddha. Schlegel calls it pantheism, be
cause it admits no real being but God. Stoeckl styles it
nihilism, and says: "Sakja-Muni, its author, has no Godbut nothingness. Nothingness, so runs the first of the
great truths of Buddhism, is the true being of all things ;
all we take to be reality is void and without substance."
Existence, or rather the clinging to individual existence,
is the cause of all evil, the source of all suffering. It is
therefore man s duty to shake himself free from this vain
semblance of existence, or rather from his attachment
to it. His end is to attain to the primary, the only true
state of non-existence, to the extinction of his personal
consciousness.
This annihilation is called Nirvana. It is attained
by a course of frightful penances. By it the Buddhist
becomes one with God, knowing the nothingness of all
things. He can sin no more; like Sakja-Muni, he shares
in the Divine honors which are due to Buddha. In such
disciples as attain Nirvana the Deity is ever generatedanew. Those who do not attain to Nirvana are con
demned to wander over the earth in some spectral form.
The Buddhists became divided into several sects.
Bloody wars between them and the Brahmans drove
them to many lands. These errors of Indian philosophy
appear all the more pitiful when they are contrasted with
6 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
the contemporary sublime teachings of the Holy Bible.
And yet some writers in Christian lands have striven of
late years to invest the old errors of Asia with false at
tractive charms; as was done, for instance, by Edwin
Arnold in his "Light of Asia." At the Congress of Re
ligions of the Chicago World Exposition a similar pur
pose was fostered by some of the directors.
8. On the absurd and most pernicious system of Buddhism is founded the modern vagary of Theosophy. It
claims to be a body of esoteric, or hidden, wisdom, re
vealed in the beginning of time, and contained in "the
Book of All Truth." This book, as Mme. Blavatsky pretended when she inaugurated the imposture, and as
Mme. Besant teaches to-day, is in the faithful custody of
certain initiates, men of light and learning, dwelling in
Thibet, and called Mahatmas, or great spirits, wTho by
passing through severe ordeals and various metamor
phoses, have developed their spiritual nature, and mastered all within them that is physical and passional.
They understand the hidden wisdom, and by it can con
trol the powers of nature, producing effects almost as
marvelous as Christian miracles. Buddha, Confucius and
even Christ Himself are classed among the Mahatmas.
The ultimate reward is Nirvana, which, in this theory, is
not annihilation, but absorption into the Divine reality.
Theosophy is an anti-Christian and godless system,
using as its credentials imposture and real deviltry, as is
proved by Rev. Richard Clarke, S.J., in his pamphlet
styled "Theosophy." It is a modern form of ancient
magic. That magic has real existence is clear from the
Acts of the Apostles, Chapter VIII, and from various
other passages of the Bible.
CHAPTER II.
PERSIA.
9. The religious teachings of the ancient Persians con
tained many elements of a philosophic character. Its
main feature was Dualism, a belief in two first principles,
Ormuzd, the source of all good, and Ariman, the source
of all evil. Ormuzd is the infinite light, the supreme
wisdom, the creator of the heavenly bodies, of the souls
of men and of all that is good in the world. He was wor
shiped under the emblem of light or fire. In later times
fire itself became the object of Persian adoration.
Ariman, who was good at first, envied Ormuzd and
became evil. He created the Daevas, or evil spirits,
darkness, winter, storms and all noxious plants and ani
mals. At first the good spirit alone was worshiped;later the people strove to propitiate Ariman; and in or
der to do so they avoided good and promoted evil, mak
ing the whole country most miserable. They became
even devil worshipers.
Then arose Zarathushtra, called in Greek Zoroaster,
probably about the year 600 B.C. He restored the wor
ship of Ormuzd, taught the Persians to till the fields,
and opposed Ariman by the promotion of the arts and
the destruction of noxious creatures. As an explanation
of his religion, he wrote the sacred book called the Zend
Avesta. In it he speaks of a mediating divinity, Mith
ras, an agent of good to mankind, who was
timately to bring back Ariman to his origin^Tgpeehuess.7
8 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
The Persians had preserved many truths of the primitive revelation. For instance, their Avesta says:
"
I am
wholly without doubt in the coming of the resurrection
and the later body ;in an invariable recompense of good
deeds and their reward, and of bad deeds and their punishment, as well as in the continuance of Paradise."
Their nice sense of right and wrong is shown in their form
of confession, which partly runs thus: "That which was
the wish of Ormuzd, the Creator, that which I ought to
have done and have not done, what I ought to have
spoken and have not spoken, what I ought to have
thought and have not thought, of these sins I repent with
thought, words and works, corporeal as well as spiritual,
earthly as well as heavenly, and with the three words:
Lord, I repent of my sin." The story of Ariman and his
Daevas is evidently a perversion of the fall of the angels,
who thenceforth made war on God, and caused them
selves to be adored by the Gentiles; as David sings: "All
the gods of the Gentiles are devils" (Ps. 95).
Dualism gained much favor with various Eastern na
tions; which was chiefly due to its popular explanation
of evil, as proceeding from an evil first principle, and
therefore not imputable to God. It was a leading error
of the Gnostics in the first and second centuries of the
Christian era, of the Manicheans in the third, and of the
Albigenses in the twelfth century (n. 46). All these sec
tarians were not anti-Catholic only, but also anti-Chris
tian. Still, because they opposed the Catholic Church,
they usually enjoy the full sympathy of Protestants.
(See Points of History, pages 60 to 66; also, for speci
men extracts of the Zend Avesta, see the Dublin Review
for July, 1906.)
CHAPTER III.
CHINA.
10. The Chinese showed but little power of philosophic
speculation or abstract thought, but great tenacity in
preserving received teachings. Fohi was the founder of
their religious civilization, the inventor of their written
language, and the author of the Y-King, which is the
first of their sacred books.
The religious notions of the Chinese are as follows: the
most excellent thing is Heaven; it is the object of Divine
homage. Next comes the center of the earth, China,which maintains the balance and the harmony of the
world. Man is the link that binds heaven and earth to
gether; his duty is to preserve harmony. The fixed laws
of harmony emanate from the center, that is from the
sovereign, the father of the people. All the Chinese form
one family divided into smaller groups; obedience to do
mestic law is every man s chief duty.It is not known when Fohi lived; but about the year
500 B.C. there arose in China a renowned reformer, Kun-
fu-tse, Confucius, who became the moral lawgiver and
guide of his people for all future ages. His teachingswere in conformity with the received traditions of the
nation, chiefly inculcating self-restraint and moderation.
Harmony, or concord, is the primary requirement of rea
son. This concord supposes that every man confines
himself absolutely to his own place, within his own9
10 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
sphere of action. Thus were the Chinese confirmed in
the ultra-conservative traditions of their ancestors, which
have kept the country in about the same condition for
the last twenty-five centuries.
In all this there is conspicuous the absence of original
and abstract thought. Whatever speculations have
been found in China have been imported from abroad.
Thus the sect of Lao-tse, whose doctrines are taught in a
book called Tao-te-king, appears to be of Indian origin.
It assumes the existence of a primary being, Tao, or
Reason. The end which man must strive after is the
rule of reason over passion. The sect of Fo, or Foo, is a
low form of Buddhism: it teaches that all action is evil;
absolute rest is perfection.
CHAPTER IV.
EGYPT AND WESTERN ASIA.
11. The early philosophic notions of the Egyptianraces are wrapped in obscurity. The religions of Egyptand Western Asia were forms of nature worship. In
Egypt Osiris, the Sun, was the active principle, producing
all plastic energy in nature; the passive principle was the
goddess Isis, In Western Asia, the former was called
Moloch or Baal, the latter Militta or Astarte.
The nature worship of Egypt and Western Asia led to
the grossest idolatry. The Egyptians adored the cat, the
bull, the crocodile and even the plants of their gardens.
In Greece the poets traced a genealogy of the gods which
their countrymen worshiped, and which were chiefly
these same powers of nature personified; the Romans
adopted and enlarged the fiction.
Wherever the adoration of the powers of nature was
introduced, at least in Egypt, Greece and Rome, secret
rites were celebrated by those initiated in the Mysteries,
as these meetings were called. In later times the gross
est immoralities were practiced at those meetings, and
the practices were continued till at least the fourth cen
tury of the Christian era. The Christian Fathers, in
particular Clement of Alexandria toward the close of the
second century, inveighed strongly against their im
morality.
It is strange that this nature worship is exalted in the
11
12 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
esoteric doctrines of modern Freemasonry as the "
Light,"
the fuller knowledge of which is held up in the lower de
grees as the precious great secret to be gradually revealed
to the initiates in the higher degrees. The matter is fully
explained in Albert Pike s Morals and Dogmas of the
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, an
analysis of which is found in the American Ecclesiastical
Review for 1899 and 1900, entitled "Is FreemasonryAnti-Christian?"
Pike wrote this book for the instruction of the initiates,
to whom he says: "The powers revealed in the Mysteries
were all in reality nature gods" (p. 354); and (p. 231):"
Though Masonry is identical with the ancient Mysteries,
it is so only in this qualified sense that it presents but an
imperfect image of their grandeur."
SECTION II.
GREEK PHILOSOPHY.
12. The Greeks were so prolific in philosophic speculations that there is scarcely a truth or an error in the
field of abstract thought which was not at some time or
other maintained by some of their writers. In their
eagerness for knowledge, they first sought for informa
tion in Egypt and Asia Minor; but they seem to have de
rived from those sources little more than a stimulus for
mental exertion. They began with the crudest guesses
at truth; but they did not stop till they had traced out
philosophic systems which have elicited the admiration
of all subsequent ages.
The first philosophers to gain the favor of the Greeks
were not abstract theorists, but practical men whose
pithy maxims, clearly and briefly enunciated, enlight
ened the mind and prompted the heart to prudent action
and to the cultivation of temperate habits. Seven of
these acquired such a reputation that they were called
the Seven Sages ; namely Solon, the legislator of Athens,
Thales, the father of speculative philosophy, Periander,
Pittacus, Cleobulus, Ohio and Bias. Here are some spec
imens of their wise sayings: "Know thyself," "Avoid
excess," "Know thine opportunity," "Self-confidence
goes before a fall,"
" Be slow to resolve, swift to execute,"
"The greatest blessing is the power to do good," etc.
13. The philosophic systems taught successively by13
14 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
various Greek speculators, and later on by Roman, be
long to three distinct periods :
1. The Pre-Socratic period, which extended from 640
to 440 B.C. It was a period of preparation.2. The period of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, from
440 to 322 B.C. the period of perfection.
3. The period of decay, from 322 B.C. to about 300
years after Christ.
CHAPTER I.
THE PERIOD OF PREPARATION.
14. In the seventh century before Christ the Grecian
race did not occupy Greece alone, but also the sea coast of
Asia Minor, many islands in the Mediterranean sea andseveral cities on the Italian peninsula. As they rose in
power and wealth, they became more and more inter
ested in the cultivation of various sciences, and in partic
ular in philosophic speculations about the origin and the
nature of the world around them. The theories thence
resulting were of three chief varieties, the Ionic, the
Pythagorean and the Eleatic.
ARTICLE I. THE IONIC PHILOSOPHERS.
The lonians of Asia Minor appear to have been the
first who attempted a solution of the problem which the
universe presents to thoughtful minds. That the world
was a vast mass of matter their senses testified;but it was
everywhere full of motion and changes, and they asked
themselves what was the first cause of all this activity.
They supposed that the matter was all instinct with life,
like one huge animal;whence their system is called Hylo-
zoism, the theory of living matter (v\rj, matter, <ui/, life).
Their philosophers are usually distinguished into two
classes, the Earlier lonians, who were the first in the field
of speculation, and the Later lonians, who could profit
by the labors of their predecessors.15
16 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
The Earlier lonians.
15. These did not speculate as to where the matter
constituting the world came from, but what was the first
principle of its multiform activity.
1. Thales, born at Miletus, 640 years before Christ, wasthe first to propound a theory on the subject. We haveseen him numbered among the Seven Sages; he is said to
have been so learned as to have, at that early day, predicted an eclipse of the Sun. He conjectured that Water
was the first principle of action in the universe. Aris
totle, who embodied in his Metaphysics a sort of historyof philosophy, says about him: "Thales was perhaps led
to this opinion by observing that the nutriment of all
things is moist, that heat itself, by which living thingsare maintained in life, is educed from moisture .... and
further that the seed from which living organisms springis of its nature moist. But the principle making objects
moist is water." Therefore Thales judged that water is
the first principle of action in the universe.
2. Anaximander, born in the same city some thirty
years later, thought that the first principle of action is the
boundless matter itself, TO a-n-eipov, as he called it. Hewas the first among the Greeks to compose a treatise" On Nature," in which he teaches that a perpetual movement of revolution results in condensations of the world
matter. In this way numberless worlds come into be
ing heavenly divinities in the midst of which the
earth, cylindrical in form, maintains itself at rest, owingto its being equally distant from all points of the heav
enly sphere. Admitting, with Thales, that all living
things come from moisture, or water, he supposes fishes
The Period of Preparation. 17
to have been the first animals, which, when the earth
became dry, changed their forms to those of land ani
mals. The evolution theory is thus seen to be veryancient.
3. Anaximenes, some eighty years later, traced all energyin the world to the atmospheric air; he says:
" As the soul
within us, which is air (breath), holds our being together,
so do the breath and air embrace the world." The life
of the world was often spoken of by these philosophersas the
"
Deity."
The Later lonians.
16. Among these, 1. Heraclitus (born 530 B.C.) main
tained that an ethereal fire caused the world. Yet, as it
produced an orderly world, it cannot have been blind,
but must have been an intelligent force, a Fire-Spirit,
which he called"
Reason." Still he did not consider that
spirit to be distinct from the matter, but only one of its
qualities. This system, like all the preceding ones, is
therefore monistic, not dualistic, as it would be called if
the matter and the spirit were really distinct from each
other. Yet it is an improvement on the former theories.
Another leading feature of his teaching is that he consid
ered all things as constantly changing, so that nothing"
is"
but everything is constantly"
becoming." All things are
flowing (irdvTa pet), as he expressed it.
2. Empedocles supposes four elements: earth, air,
water and fire. These are acted on by Love, which
unites them, and by Hate, which drives them asunder.
But all this movement is merely mechanical: no intelli
gence is working in it; it is a step backward. These four
18 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
elements continued to be admitted by philosophers, even
in the Middle Ages.
3. Leusippus, with his pupil Democritus, strays still
farther from the truth. All things come from two prin
ciples: Emptiness or Space, and Fullness, by which word
he signifies countless atoms, or invisible particles movingceaselessly in space and uniting with one another to form
various bodies. Thus all order results from mere chance,
as with the Darwinists of modern times. The system,called Atomism, was elaborated into much detail, so as
even to explain by it the working of sense perception,
which was said to be produced by atomic images striking
the eye, the ear, etc.
4. Anaxagoras (born about 500 B.C.) was of sounder
mind, and surpassed even Heraclitus in his approach to
the truth. He made the reason, which controls the
primal matter, more truly spiritual, an intelligence dis
tinct from matter, which he called Mind (voCs). Matter itself he supposes to consist of homogeneous and
heterogeneous particles. But he errs in making the
human soul, the brute soul, and the life of plants, parts
of that Divine mind.
ARTICLE II. THE PYTHAGOREANS.
17. Pythagoras and his followers flourished, chiefly in
the Grecian colonies of Italy, about the same time as the
later lonians. Instead of speculating about the origin
of the world, they attempted to explain the essence of
things. The system elaborated by them is very intricate
and ingenious, but not easily understood. It is founded
on mathematics. All things consist of numbers : both
The Period of Preparation. 19
souls and bodies are numbers or collections of numbers;
by number and harmony the soul is bound to the body.God is the Divine monad, or unity, the basis of all number, the one cause of all corporeal entity, the ruler of the
world. The soul is indestructible; after death it enters
into a nobler or viler body according to its deserts. For
Metempsychosis is one of Pythagoras s chief tenets. Ul
timately, purified souls attain to incorporeal life, while
degraded souls go down to Tartarus. The highest goodon earth is virtue, which is harmony; it assimilates manto God.
ARTICLE III. THE ELEATICS.
18. The Eleatic philosophers were also contemporarywith the later lonians, most of them flourishing in the
fifth century before Christ. The first of them was Xeno-
phanes, of Clorophon, whose work was continued by his
disciples Parmenides and Zeno, both of Elea, a city in
Italy, and Melissus, of Samos. Their characteristic
doctrine was that there existed only one being, rational,
perfect, changeless, which they called God; all else is but
a mass of deceptive appearances. Their chief arguments to prove this were as follows: 1. Nothing can be
gin to exist; for it could not have come from any cause
unless it preexisted in that cause. If it preexisted, it did
not begin to exist when it assumed its new form. There
fore nothing can begin to exist. 2. Nothing existing
can move;for it would have to move into a vacuum, but
a vacuum cannot exist because it has no being. 3. Amoving body must pass through an infinite number of
intermediate spaces before it can reach a certain place,
20 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
but the infinite cannot be passed; therefore the bodies
cannot get to any new place, they cannot move at all.
Yet our senses tell us that they move; therefore our
senses are deceptive. A doctrine so absurd could not
long deceive the keen-witted Greeks; but it paved the
way for the Sophists.
ARTICLE IV. THE SOPHISTS.
19. The Eleatic theory that bodies are only delusive
appearances, and the fallacies advanced to support it,
after a while discredited all speculation and led manyinto scepticism, which was openly advocated by the
Sophists. This name, which means "
\vise men " was os
tentatiously assumed by a class of cultured teachers, well
versed in literature, politics and the various other sci
ences, who, in the days of Athens greatest power and
opulence, put themselves forward as the instructors of
the Grecian youths.
They pretended to carry the art of rhetoric to its highest perfection by teaching their pupils to speak glibly and
elegantly for or against any cause whatever, and to provethe weaker argument to be the stronger. They under
mined all virtue, setting aside religion, morality and
justice, and denying the existence of any certainty. All
truth was only relative, they maintained, true for such a
time and place, not for other times and places; nothingwas absolutely true and just. The Sophists made such
constant use of fallacious arguments that, since their time,
a fallacious argument has been called a sophism.The chief Sophists were Protagoras, of Abdera, and
Gorgias, of Leontini. They taught in Athens and else-
The Period of Preparation. 21
where, about 430 B.C. Protagoras maintained the same
error as the modern Agnostics. For instance, he wrote" Of the gods I can know nothing, neither that they are
nor that they are not; there is much to prevent our at
taining this knowledge the obscurity of the subject and
the shortness of life." Gorgias was more of a Nihilist
than a Sceptic; for he entitled one of his works: "
Nature,
or the Non-Existing," a book full of sophisms, of course.
For instance he reasons thus in it: the infinite cannot
exist; for it would have to exist either in itself or in some
thing else, but it can do neither. His teaching was the
bankruptcy of all philosophy, and of all morality and
religion.
CHAPTER II.
THE PERIOD OF PERFECTION.
20. The reaction of common sense against the scepti
cal theories of the Sophists was begun by Socrates, whounmasked their fallacies, and was continued by Plato
and Aristotle, who built up systems of philosophy that
have elicited the admiration of all subsequent ages.
Plato is remarkable for his noble conceptions of God and
the human soul and the relations between them; Aris
totle for his keen analysis of the things knowable by rea
son, and for the systematic combination of all the ele
ments of knowledge into a harmonious structure of
philosophic science.
Athens was the battlefield on which the contest took
place between these masterly leaders of thought and
their various opponents. Up to their time speculation
had dealt with the origin and the nature of the world;
and only casual application had been made of various
theories to the conduct of men. Socrates turned his
chief attention to man s own nature and his moral duties:
self-knowledge, theoretical and practical, was the direct
object of his teaching. "Know thyself" he constantly
inculcated; but this self-knowledge naturally led to the
knowledge of God and of the future life.
ARTICLE I. SOCRATES.
21. Socrates was born in Athens, 471 B.C. He began
by mastering the various systems of preceding philoso-22
The Period of Perfection. 23
phers, which he found visionary, false and pernicious to
mind and morals. He felt himself prompted by what he
called a Divine oracle to disabuse the youths of Athens
of all foolish speculations, and bring them to the plain
teachings of common sense. He claimed that he often
heard the voice of a guardian spirit warning him and
directing his conduct to this end. His professed purposewas the inculcation of sound morality. In his argumentshe constantly insisted on the correct definition of terms
and ideas. He would take up such statements as pre
sented themselves in conversation or in the teaching of
the Sophists, and, by similes or oratorical inductions,
find out the truths and the errors involved in them.
This peculiar method of teaching has been called the So-
cratic Method. It consists in laying down no thesis, but
in starting the mind a questioning about some familiar
subject, thus gradually leading the hearers on, by what
is styled Socratic Irony, to discover for themselves
their own erroneous ideas or unproved assumptions, till
they arrive at evident truth. Thus he disabused them
of false theories, and taught them the great truths that
should regulate the life of man. See an example of this
peculiar process in Charles BakewelPs Source Book in
Philosophy, pp. 101-103.
Socrates is not known to have written any books; his
teachings have come down to us chiefly in a work of his
disciple Xenophon, entitled Memorabilia Socratis, and in
Plato s dialogues. In these elegant compositions Plato pro
fesses to report various conversations of Socrates. These,
however, are so much adorned and otherwise modified byhimself that the master exclaimed: "How many things
that young man makes me say which I never uttered."
24 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
One serious error in the teaching of Socrates is that he
considered virtue to be identical with knowledge, sayingthat no man can knowingly do wrong, that ignorance is
the one source of moral evil. This would do away with
free will and accountability.
Because his doctrines discredited the polytheism of the
people, he was accused of corrupting the youth of Ath
ens, and condemned to die by drinking hemlock. Pla
to s dialogue called Phaedo narrates in a most elegant
and touching manner the conversation held by Socrates
with his disciples on the day of his unjust execution. Its
topic is the immortality of the soul.
ARTICLE II. IMPERFECT FOLLOWERS OF SOCRATES.
22. Socrates had several followers who founded new
systems of their own, departing widely from the wisdom
of their master, usually by perverting or exaggeratingsome of his teachings. The principal of these are the
Cynics and the Hedonists.
I. The Cynics. The founder of these, named Antis-
thenes, took as his leading idea the principle that virtue
was not only the chief good of man, as Socrates had
taught, but that it was his only good, and that nothingelse deserved any consideration whatever. His follow
ers scoffed at honor, noble birth, riches, marriage, gov
ernment, and even at common decency; and from this
snarling language, it would seem, and their brutal be
havior they derived their appellation of Cynics, that is,
doglike (KWIKOI).
One of these disciples, Diogenes, is said to have lived
in a tub; and when Alexander the Great came to visit
The Period of Perfection. 25
him, and asked what favor the philosopher might desire,
the latter, to show his self-sufficiency, simply asked the
monarch to stand aside and not obstruct the sunlight.
II. The Hedonists, or Cyrenaics. The founder of this
school was Aristippus, a native of Gyrene, who, like Soc
rates, made happiness the main purpose of life, but madethat happiness consist in the mere pleasure of the mo
ment, and explained this pleasure as the sensation of
gentle emotion (^Sovr;), whence the name Hedonists.
In this system gentle pleasure of any kind is good and
worthy of man, and the principal object to be desired.
The more intense and the more lasting the pleasure the
better. Yet to enjoy such pleasure we need intelligence
and virtue. For virtue consists in self-control; and self-
control prevents us from indulging pleasure to injurious
excess and becoming its slaves; while intelligence must
show us the ways to procure pleasure, and to remove all
hindrances to its enjoyment. The Hedonists restricted
all knowledge to sensation, as if we were certain of noth
ing but our own feelings.
ARTICLE III. PLATO.
23. Plato, born 428 B.C., was the most distinguished
of Socrates disciples in social standing, natural gifts and
devotedness to philosophic studies. After his master s
death in 399, he traveled much in search of wisdom
through Greece, Egypt, Sicily and other lands. Havingreturned to Athens, he lectured in the gardens of the
Academy, which for a hundred years remained the school
of his followers, whence they are called Academicians.
He published his teaching mostly in the form of elegant
dialogues; thirty-six of his treatises have been preserved.
26 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
24. Plato elaborated a vast and consistent systemof philosophy, of which the main doctrines are as
follows:
(T^His peculiar theory oj ideas is a characteristic feature
of his philosophy. Knowledge, he says correctly, sup
poses a mental grasp of the truth, that is, of objects ;and
scientific knowledge supposes a grasp of what is perma-
nent and necessary in objects. For science is knowledgederived from universal causes, or general principles. 13your senses we form sensations of individual things ;
which
knowledge is contingent and variable. But we also have
concepts, which represent the properties necessary and
permanent in all the objects of a class, even in those in
dividual objects of which we have had no sensations; for
instance, the general concept of "a triangle," "a man,"
"an animal"; all of which concepts would still be the
same even if no individual objects of them existed.
They represent what is truly universal, unchangeable, in-
dependent of time and place.
These mental concepts Plato supposes to be derived
from objective realities, which he calls ideas, which he
imagined our soul must have perceived formerly in"an-
other state of existence, before it was banished from that
ideal world and united to our bodies. Inthje present
life, when I jsee, for instance, an animal, I recall the gen-
eraj_ldea_ "jmimal," which I beheld in my former state.
But evidentlyjtt^jhjo^js_onjy a^guess, a mere myth ;
and knowledge based on a myth is unreliable .
(^ God. That which is manifested by ideas is neces
sary; Plato confounds it with the supreme reality, or
God. Ideas form the substance of His essence, or, as
others interpret Plato s teaching, proceed from His es-
The Period of Perfection. 27
sence as plans come from the mind of an architect. Godforms various things on the model of these ideas, im-
pressing them on matter, which is an independent beingcoeternal with Himself. But matter is not capable of
receiving the impression perfectly. Thus all imperfec-
tion, all evil, comes from matter and not from God.-MM ^M M^iWM.r<^HM.^_BM-B.^.^MWM_H.V.^M^MB-l>
\$^Cosmology. God cannot have been created; and
He cannot have created jnatter, since its qualities are/the
very opposite of His own : variable, multiple, passive, in
definite. But God made the soul of the world. This
world-soul makes the matter active, but it cannot act
except in matter. By individualizing itself, it makes
the gods, the demons and human souls. These last were
formed in a higher and happier condition than they are
in now; but for some fault committed they were con
demned to be united with their present bodies, on which
they act as a charioteer acts on his horses. In the material world are two principles: the terrestrial, without
which nothing is solid, and the igneous, without which
nothing is visible. But these two extremes could not
act on each other; therefore the world-soul made two in
termediate elements, air and water, which bring the two
together. The world is like a living animal. Its motions in time constitute the Great Periods.
r)_Mfln rThe soul has intelligence and love. Tojtg
ideas corresponds the love of the absolutely good ;to its
sensations, sensual love. Between these higher and lower
parts are the supersensible passions of anger, ambition,
etc. The seat of ideas and of the highest love is in the
head, that of the higher passions in the heart, that of the
lower in the abdomen. We have three souls, the high-
est of which alone is intellectual.
28 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
5. Logic furnishes the rules which the intellect mustfollow in the investigation of truth.
\6y Morals are the laws so regulating man s love and
conduct as to make him imitate God. Now God acts
according to His ideas; therefore man must do the samehe must make his higher love direct his passions. The
good is the realization of the true; the beautiful is the
splendor of truth; moral good consists in the harmonyof the soul when all its parts are in a natural relation to
one another; vice is discord in the soul. Plato teaches
distinctly that man is free, but also that no one does
wrong knowingly; two propositions which it is not easyto reconcile with each other.
7. Politics is the application of morality to social in
stitutions, directing man to love what is truly good, andfor this purpose removing all that divides men. Plato
would even do away with marriage and private property,
as fostering such divisions. He would admit only three
social classes: namely, the thinkers, or rulers, correspond
ing to our ideas; the public force, corresponding to our
higher passions; and the laborers, to the lower.
8. The future life will reward those who have acted
according to their ideas, as God does, and punish those
who have not. The soul after death enters into a new
body suited to its virtues or vices, thus undergoing vari
ous metempsychoses till, at the end of ten thousand years,
everything returns again to its primitive condition.
<^^Theentire philosophy j>J
Plato exhibits a noble,
powerful and poetic mind, grappling with the great problems of life and of the world around us with considerablymore success than any of his predecessors, yet failing in
several important points.
The Period of Perfection. 29
He strikingly displays before us the infinite greatness,
goodness and wisdom of God, His unity and sovereigntyover the world; the spirituality and immortality of the
soul and the reward of virtue and punishment of vice.
He also preserved some traditions of man s original in
nocence, his fall from grace and the existence of superior
intelligences between God and man. But many of these
teachings rest on no solid reasonings, and the many er
rors mixed with them show the limitations of a most
highly gifted human mind.
ARTICLE IV. ARISTOTLE.
26. Aristotle, born at Stagira, 384 B.C., was for twenty
years a pupil of Plato at Athens; later he was invited byPhilip, King of Macedon, to come and educate his young
son, Alexander the Great. Returning later to Athens he
there opened a school in the gardens of the Lyceum,where he used to teach walking up and down with his
disciples. From this practice arose their name of Peri
patetic philosophers (TrepnraTfut, I walk about).
27. 1. His explanation of human knowledge rejects
Plato s false theory of ideas. By a correct analysis of
the processes of the human mind, Aristotle succeeded in
giving a true and clear account of them, thus establish
ing our knowledge on a solid foundation. He teaches
that from the phantasms, or brain images, resulting from
our sensations, our mind forms ideas by its power of ab-
straction, considering separately various elements of the
objects presented to the senses. His maxim is: "~Nihil
est in intellectu quod prius non fuerat in sensu."" There
is nothing in our intellect which was not first presented
30 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
to the senses." Thus our knowledge is evidently taken
from the objective reality, and is therefore conformable
to that reality; it is true. Our mind grasps notes or
qualities which exist in^eyery individual object of a class,
say an animal; but it abstracts, or withdraws its consid
eration from all individualizing traits.. The idea so
formed is universal, realized in all the objects of a class,
but the objects exist as individuals.
28.^2|His Logic distinguishes in objects their genus,
species, difference, properties and accidents; and it ex
plains such processes of reasoning as are taught in the
text-books on Logic used in most Catholic colleges. Aris
totle treats of judgments and propositions in his work
entitled De Interpretation, explaining their various
kinds with their opposition and conversion. In his An-
alytica Priora he teaches the inductive and the de
ductive forms of reasoning, and explains some of the
principal rules of the syllogism. In his Analytica Pos-
teriora he establishes his theory of ideas, and points
out the first truths from which all demonstration must
begin, and which need not to be themselves demonstrated
because the intellect (vovs) grasps them directly in their
objective reality. His Topica deals with the Probable,
or Dialectic, Syllogism; while his treatise De Sophisticis
Elenchis, exposes the fallacies used by the Sophists.
Q^v In his Physics Aristotle Considers the material uni
verse _with_ its workings or motions . He shows these
to be ruled by universal laws, which work always for a
purpose: "Nature does nothing in vain/" Nature is ever
striving for the best." He recognizes in nature s work
ings a jiennite^ teleological concept, a plan of develop-
ment;and therefore he admits the argument of design to
The Period of Perfection. 31
prove the existence of ("Joel; still he does not make this
His principal proof of God s existence, as we shall_seefurther on.
29. Having no idea of creation from nothing, he sup-
BQges matter to have existed from eternity; and, as matter
must ever be some special kind of matter, forms must
also have been from eternity. Motion, too, must have
been without beginnJng> and therefore also time, which
is nothing but the measure of succession in moving^things. The space occupied by the world is actually
finite, but potentially infinite.
The elements making up the world are those pointedout by Empedocles, namely air, earth, water and fire; to
which Aristotle adds ether, which fills the celestial sphere
above, and is the constituent of the heavenly bodies,
Tfie earth is in the center of the universe, spherical and
stationary. Around it is the air, and beyond the air a
sphere of .fire. Surrounding all is "the First Heaven,"
that of the fixed stars, which is directly set in motion bythe first mover, GodT But how? Here Aristotle met
with a great difficulty, which we shalLexplain further on.
30. His theory of the constitution of bodies is as follows:
In every body there are twoijljjtments
: the primal mat
ter, which gives it extension jjtfid the form, or quiddity,
which gives it action of a ce^aili kind7 making it such or
such matter, erther iron a/lead, |arose, a sparrow, a man,
etc. The form isthe^afinciple
6f specification, the mat
ter the principle of jiddividuatioiT
Bodies rise abo^e one anotherun perfection by a con
tinual gradatioj^ Lowest in the)pcale are the inorganic,
or inanimate bodies; then follow organic bodies with
merely vegetable life (plants) ;next come brute animals;
32 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
and lastly man, who is superior to all other material be
ings by his gift of reason, thereby sharing an attribute
of God. The form of an organic body, whether plant,
or animal or man, is called the soul (^x7?) ,
it is the life
principle, and the source of all the actions of the planteranimal. The brute soul comprises the powers of _the
vegetative as well as of the animal life; and the humansoul performs all the functions of vegetative, animal and
intellectual life. For in every body there is only one
principle of action, one form.
(A) Aristotle s treatise on Metaphysics was so called
either because, among his works, it was put after the
Physics (/Acra, after), or because it analyzes those reali
ties which lie back of the physical properties of bodies;
for it deals with being as such, and investigates the ulti-
mate principles or causes of all things. It correspondsto what, in our philosophical text-books, is usually
denominated " General Metaphysics," or "
Ontology."
Aristotle created this entire body of the deepest human
speculation, and at once brought it up to the highest
perfection it has ever reached, except as far as Divine
revelation has further illumined and extended its field of
thought. In this same treatise Aristotle also refutes the
philosophic theories of former teachers, thereby earningfor himself the title of
" Father of the History of Philos
ophy."
31. 5. Theology. Aristotle proves the existence of
God as follows: Every being is either actual or potential.
The potential cannot become actual unless some other
being acts on it. If that second being is started into ac
tion by a third, that third must be actual. Thus wemust come to an ultimate active being which ia not itself
The Period of Perfection. 33
acted upon, a first nause not caused, a first mover not
moved by another. This being we call God. The only
escape from this reasoning would be to suppose that
there has been an infinite series of causes; but an infinite
series could never have been gone through so as to reach
a definite cause.
As to God s attributes Aristotle teaches, as corollaries
from the nature of the First Cause, that God is: 1. Abso
lutely simple, excluding all parts; pure form without
matter; all actuality, and one without a compeer. 2.
While in man knowledge is an accident added to the sub
stance, God s knowledge is Himself, not some accident
added to him. Being self-sufficient, and finding perfect
happiness in Himself, God could not, Aristotle thought,will anything out of Himself. Hence His activity is one
of mere self-contemplation. Nor can He know any
thing outside Himself, because the thing known perfects
the knower, and God cannot acquire any perfection from
any other being.
32. Hence came the difficulty to which we referred
above. If God could not know nor will anything out
side of Himself, how then can He move the world? Aris
totle answers this by saying that God is to the world an
object of tendency or desire; for, being the supreme
good, He is the object of tendency for all things, so that
they are all drawn to Him. And as He is elevated above
the world, all things move upward toward Him, every
being doing so after its own nature. So likewise, since
God cannot know anything out of Himself, he cannot
exercise His providence over men or other things; yet all
is well regulated by the general motion which He neces
sarily communicates to the whole world.
34 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
The fact that so powerful a mind as Aristotle s went
so far astray in his speculations about God makes it
strikingly evident that the teachings of the Old Testa
ment could not have proceeded from merely human wis
dom, much less could the doctrines of Christianity.
33. (6\ The Psychology of Aristotle is far superior to
his Theology. It is so perfect a production of his ana
lytic mind that subsequent ages have not been able to
improve upon its main features nor upon most of its de
tails. In fact, to exhibit the discoveries which he madein this department of philosophy it would be necessary
to explain nearly the entire treatise on Psychology as it
is taught to-day in Catholic colleges. We must, how
ever, point out some important exceptions.
(a) While Aristotle saw clearly enough that an intel
lectual soul cannot be evolved from matter, and there
fore cannot proceed by mere generation from the par
ents, as does the life principle of plant and brute; while
he stated even explicitly that it must come to man from
without (OvpaOev) ,and therefore he calls it something
Divine (Oflov), he could not, on his theory that Goddoes not act in the world, admit the truth that the hu
man soul comes directly from God by creation. Yet
Moses had written, eleven centuries before, in the second
chapter of Genesis: "The Lord formed man out of the
slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath
of life, and he became a living soul." That there is an
exigency in the nature of an intellectual being for some
such origin Aristotle understood, but the manner of its
accomplishment he failed to know.
(&) Similarly he nowhere speaks of the immortalityof individual human souls. On this point, as on some
The Period of Perfection. 35
others of great moment, he falls far behind Plato, whowas therefore preferred to him by the early Christian
writers.
34. 7. The Ethics of Aristotle suffers from some most
serious defects. In particular, he does net rest our
moral duties on their true foundation, thg__supreme do-
minion of God over His creatures^ He also mistakesthe
nature of the supreme happiness to which all the conduct
of man is to be directed. For, ignoring the immortality
of the soul, Aristotle makes us look for beatitude in the
present life. Yet he explains correctly that the true hap-
piness of man must consist in virtue, which will bring
tim an enjoyment worthy of man s dignity.
35. 8. Under the head of Ethics we may consider the
Political Philosophy of the author. It is superior to
Plato s in not pushing State absolutism to the length of
Socialism;but it is inferior to the latter s in providing
for the enforcement of the laws no higher sanction than
happiness or unhappiness in the present life. Aristotle
rightly maintains the priority of the family to the State;
and he therefore makes it the duty of the State to keepthe family intact; but, at the same time, he errs grossly
in requiring that, for the public good, children of im
perfect bodily formation shall be destroyed, and the.
number of children shall be limited by law. He errs like
wise in teaching that nature intends some men of less
mental capacity to be slaves, and in refusing them all
rights against their masters. He grants that to treat
them cruelly is wrong; but he maintains that a cruel
master does not violate their rights.
CHAPTER III.
THE PERIOD OF DECAY.
36. The battle of Chaeronea, which occurred in the
year 338 B.C., put an end to the civil liberty of the Greeks,
and with it to the golden age of their literature and phi
losophy. Then arose various novel theories, which con
tinued for many centuries to exercise considerable influ
ence among the learned men of Greece and Rome. The
principal of these were three : Stoicism, Epicureanism and
Scepticism.
ARTICLE I. STOICISM.
37. Stoicism is so called from the fact that its origina
tor, Zeno, delivered his lectures in a porch (oroa).
Born in Cyprus, and first engaged in commercial pursuits,
he later betook himself to Athens, where, after attendingthe lectures of various teachers, at the age of sixty he set
himself up as a master, and continued his work till, in the
year 262 B.C., he died at the age of ninety-eight years.
In Logic he taught sensism, in Physics a mixture of
materialism, pantheism and fatalism; but in all these
branches of speculation he has left us nothing worthy of
our attention. His Ethics deserves our study, not so
much for its intrinsic worth, as for the great influence it
exerted both over the Greeks and over the renowned
men of Rome s classic age. It mainly treated the ques-36
The Period of Decay. 37
tion: "How can an individual man obtain perfect happiness for himself in this world?" For, after the exampleof Aristotle, the Stoics lost sight of a future life.
Their answer to this question was,"
by living conform
ably to nature," meaning by "nature" the law of the
universal, or Divine, reason. Hence living according to
nature meant leading a rational, or virtuous, life. Virtue,
in this theory, is not to be sought on account of the en
joyment or pleasure it gives, but for its own sake: it is
man s last end, his summum bonum. Virtue is called the
Right, or Proper; it is not only man s greatest good, but
his only good; all other things are indifferent.
The system taught also that virtue is essentially one
and indivisible, so that the person who had one virtue had
all the virtues, and whoever had one vice had all the
vices. Even he who would closely approximate a life
according to nature but fall below the mark in some
respect was a vicious, wicked man. Another error of
the Stoics was that no act is good or bad in itself, but anyact becomes good or bad when it is done for a good or
bad end. Again, they maintained that every bad mansins in every action, while every good man does right in
every action.
They considered the emotions, or passions, as departures from the law of reason, and therefore as morallyevil: the virtuous man yields to no emotion; he may feel
pleasure or pain, but he is not influenced in his conduct
by either. In this apathy (ch-a^s, without feeling)
consists the ideal perfection of the true sage. Such a
sage is equal in happiness to Jove himself, except only
in immortality. Whoever is not a sage is a fool; he is
swayed by every passion. Excessive pride was the nat-
38 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
ural result for such as considered themselves among the
true members of the school. Later Stoics, however, ad
mitted various degrees of virtue, and granted that no one
could attain ideal virtue.
ARTICLE II. EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY.
38. The system of Epicurus dealt with the same question as the preceding, that of perfect happiness; but it
gave an answer diametrically opposed to the former. It
claimed that the summum bonum is self-gratification,
while pain is the supreme evil of mankind. In this lead
ing tenet Epicurus, who was born 341 B.C., agreed with
the Hedonists (n. 22) ;but he modified that theory inas
much as he exalted painlessness, or a state of permanent
enjoyment, above a succession of pleasures.
How is this painlessness acquired? Epicurus answers:" Pain is the disagreeable feeling experienced under the
pressure of some need or some desire. Pain is absent
either when we can satisfy all our needs and desires, or
when we have neither needs nor desires which call for
satisfaction. We can therefore attain to happiness in
two ways: either by supplying all our needs and satisfy
ing all our desires, or by restricting our needs and de
sires to that measure which it is in our power to satisfy.
The first means is not possible to men there is nothingleft for them but to restrict their needs."
To attain this purpose the following rules were laid
down: 1. Practice due moderation. 2. Avoid pleasures
which bring with them more pain than enjoyment. 3.
Admit pain which produces more pleasure than suffering.
In this balancing of pleasures against pains the Epicur-
The Period of Decay. 39
eans admitted that spiritual pleasures can be greater
than sensuous, if they react more pleasurably on the
body; as, for instance, pleasant memories often do.
Hence the great rule of Epicurus is: "Calculate so that
you may derive from your life the greatest possible
amount of pleasure and the smallest possible amount of
pain."This requires frugality, simple habits, friend
ship and abstinence from excess. Pleasure is the end,
virtue the means to that end.
It is evident that this philosophic system destroys all
true morality and even all honor. It was supported bya logic of sensism, and a physical theory resembling that
of Democritus (n. 16-3), who considered the world as a
conglomeration of material particles combined by mere
chance; whence it would follow that man is in no waydependent on God. While the Stoic believed in fatalism,
the Epicurean believed in casualism. This theory was
extensively reduced to practice, and was for ages the
strongest rival of the Stoic philosophy.
ARTICLE III. SCEPTICISM.
39. Pyrrho, the father of Scepticism, was a contempo
rary of Aristotle. Like the Stoics and the Epicureans,
he directed his philosophy to the attaining of happiness.
He made this consist in imperturbability. Quiet of mind,
he thought, was disturbed by deep research, which should
therefore be avoided, especially since, after all, research is
unprofitable. For in themselves things are neither beau
tiful nor hateful, neither great nor small, good nor bad,
but all are indifferent: nothing is superior to anything
40 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
else. It becomes the wise man to preserve in everyevent complete tranquillity of mind. A similar philoso
phy is often heard in our own day, couched in the maxim :
"it will be all the same in a hundred years from now."
Though often uttered in mere jest, this saying consti
tutes for some persons the philosophy of their lives. Themaxim is untrue: if we bear evils well, this will make us
happier hereafter.
The Scepticism of Pyrrho differed from that of the
Sophists (n. 19), because it did not merely trifle with cer
tainty, like theirs, but it soberly maintained the useless-
ness of all study, and therefore it implied the death of all
philosophy. Still practically some of its promotersstudied hard, in order to defend their system by fallacious
reasonings; in particular dZnesidemus laid down ten rea
sons in favor of universal doubt, vigorously attacking,
among other principles, that of causality. (See Finlay s
translation of Stoeckl s History of Philosophy, page 155.)
ARTICLE IV. ECLECTICISM.
40. When Pyrrho s Scepticism had discouraged all
philosophic inquiry after certainty, an attempt was madeto find a common speculative basis on which to erect a
system of moral conduct. This basis was to be a work
ing hypothesis resting on the common convictions of
men. To this Eclecticism most followers of the other
schools strove to adapt their systems. In various forms
this kind of philosophy prevailed from about 150 B.C.
till the rise of Christian philosophy.No Greek philosophers of great name assumed the
The Period of Decay. 41
leadership of the Eclectic school. In fact we can scarcely
denominate it a"
school";
it was merely a common tend
ency of writers belonging to various schools who putforward what appeared to be most plausible and practical in their several systems, thus trying to gain favor
for their respective theories.
SECTION III.
PHILOSOPHY OF ROME ANDALEXANDRIA.
CHAPTER I.
PHILOSOPHY OF ROME.
41. Greek philosophic thought was long despised at
Rome. As late as 161 B.C. a decree of the senate forbade
philosophers and rhetoricians to dwell in the City. But
after the conquest of Greece had established closer con
tact with its people, the more practical points of its phil
osophical systems began to be appreciated by the con
querors, many of whom became indoctrinated with the
views of the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Sceptics and the
Eclectics. The following are the principal Roman phi
losophers.
1. Cicero (106-43 B.C.) was an Eclectic philosopher.
He was so far a sceptic that he despaired of arriving at
perfect certainty; and he took probability for his guideof conduct. He accepted inborn judgments as trust
worthy, and attributed to them the common sense of
men. He proved the existence of God both by the ar
gument of common consent and by that of design;
namely, from the admirable providence manifested in the
universe, which is evidently formed by a God of infinite
wisdom.42
Philosophy of Rome. 43
The soul of man he considered as of heavenly origin.
In Ethics he is a moderate Stoic, but he strongly opposesfatalism and defends human liberty. That is morally
good, he maintains, which is intrinsically praiseworthy;virtue is the highest but not the only good of man, since
honors, wealth, health, etc., contribute to a man s com
plete happiness.
It was especially during the last three years of his life
that Cicero found his consolation in philosophy, which
he labored earnestly to introduce among the Romans;and in this effort his success was considerable.
2. Varro (116-21 B.C.), who was called by Seneca the
most learned of the Romans, was a Stoic and Eclectic.
3. Lucretius (Q5-51 B.C.) explained the doctrine of Epicurus in his classical poem De Rerum Natura, "On the
Nature of Things."
4. Seneca, born in Cordova, Spain, was the teacher of
Nero, by whose order he committed suicide in the year 65
after Christ. He was a thorough-going Stoic. He consid
ered philosophy as the science of good and evil :
" That is
good which is conformable to reason; the wise man does
not fear death, he even desires it when reason approves,"
etc. Such are his leading doctrines in ethics. In met
aphysics he admits two first principles, God and matter;
God is a spirit, and the souls of men are parts of God.
5. Epictetus, first a slave, then a freedman, wrote about
the years 90 to 100 after Christ, laying his chief stress on
the maxim "
sustine, abstine," "bear and abstain," as far
as this makes you independent of external things. Like
most other original thinkers, he got hold of one leading
idea, and made all other thoughts square with it.
6. Marcus Aurelius, who was Emperor of Rome from
44 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
A.D. 161 to 180, though a Stoic, expresses several senti
ments worthy of a Christian, and which he may have
borrowed from the Christians; for by that time Chris
tianity had begun to illuminate the civilized portions of
the earth. He wrote, for instance: "Let a man consider
himself as a part of the whole, which is presided over bya wise and loving Father, to whose will he must submit."
Hence followed resignation to the dispositions of Provi
dence and kindness to all men. Even Seneca in his dayhad already caught some of the Christian spirit. Of late
years efforts have been made by opponents of Christianity
to circulate the writings of these two philosophers as
rivaling the sublime doctrines of the Blessed Saviour.
CHAPTER II.
THE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOLS.
42. Alexander the Great had founded the city of
Alexandria in Egypt 332 years B.C.; and, mindful of his
former master Aristotle, he had wished to make that city
a new center of philosophic thought. His successors, the
Ptolemies, inherited his spirit of admiration for literature
and the fine arts; and under their influence Alexandria
became a new Athens. Its Museum was a palace of
learned scholars, while its library gathered rich treasures
of Grecian, Roman, Jewish, Persian, Babylonian, Phoe
nician and Indian literature.
ARTICLE I. THE GR^ECC-JEWISH SCHOOLS.
43. The Holy Scriptures were translated into Greek at
Alexandria, probably about 250 B.C.; the work is called
the Septuagint version. Greek philosophers welcomed
this treasury of new thoughts, both as affording matter
for fresh speculations, and as suggesting a new basis for
morality, which Scepticism had undermined. In the
philosophy thence resulting it was natural that the
religious element should predominate. The Jews strove
to prove by elaborate efforts that all the best elements of
Grecian philosophy had been derived from Holy Writ, in
which they claimed the truth was wrapped in metaphor.Hence arose their method of explaining many portions
45
46 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
of the Scriptures as if they were only allegories ;for some
of the Jewish interpreters were little better than ration
alists.
44. 1. Philo the Jew, as he is usually styled, who wrote
about A.D. 50, was the most conspicuous and the ablest
of the Jewish philosophers, and the leader of this school.
He traced in the Holy Scriptures the teachings of Plato,
Aristotle, Zeno and other ancient philosophers; but he
did not succeed in blending those various elements into
one harmonious whole.
For instance, Philo identifies Plato s ideas and ideal
world, Plato s Logos, with the Divine Wisdom spoken of
in the Sapiential Books; and he considers the visible
world as an impression of that Word on matter, as a
stamp is impressed on wax. He speaks of God as a most
pure light, which is not knowable but by direct vision.
The human soul is the effulgence of that light. It con
tains two parts: its rational part is composed of reason
and speech, and the perfection of these is wisdom. Its
irrational part consists of passions and desires, whose
perfection lies in courage and moderation. Good souls
are rewarded after death; evil souls must migrate into
other bodies.
45. 2. The Talmudists made a still more arbitrary
mixture of Jewish and Greek philosophy. Their Mish-
nah, written in the second century after Christ, is a col
lection of supposed secret doctrines received by Moses
from the Lord on Mount Sinai. The G mara comprisesfuller explanations of the same. The G mara and Mish-
nah together constitute the Talmud (doctrine). There
were two Talmuds: the earlier one, of Jerusalem, and
the later, of Babylon.
The Alexandrian Schools. 47
About the same time, in the second century, the
Kabalah was developed, which was a medley of Jewish,
Pythagorean and Oriental notions. Albert Pike, in his
book entitled" Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and
Accepted Rite of Scottish Freemasonry," published for
the instruction of the Masons of the United States, ex
tols the Kabalah as a principal part of that wonderful
revelation which, under the mysterious name of "the
Light"
is made known to the initiates of the highest de
grees of that secret society.
The Kabalah is there said to be both a religion and a
philosophy. Pike speaks of it in his instructions to the
"Prince Adept," or "Knight of the Sun," which is the
twenty-eighth degree of Scottish Masonry (p. 744). He
says: "All truly dogmatic religions have issued from the
Kabalah and return to it. Everything scientific and
grand in the religious dreams of all the Illuminati, Jacob
Boehme, Swedenborg, Saint Martin and others, is bor
rowed from the Kabalah. All the masonic associations
owe to it their secrets and symbols (italics Pike s). The
Kabalah alone consecrates the alliance of the universal
Reason and the Divine Word; it establishes, by the coun
terpoise of two forces apparently opposite, the eternal
balance of being; it alone reconciles Reason with Faith,
Power with Liberty, Science with Mystery; it has the
keys of the Present, the Past and the Future. One is
filled with admiration on penetrating into the sanctuaryof the Kabalah; with which, no doubt, you will make
yourselves acquainted as to the creation."
The Kabalistic teaching is briefly analyzed in Henry s
translation of the "
Epitome of the History of PJjile*M}ghy,
Adopted by the University of France for tl
48 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
that Country" (n. 95), Vol. I, page 220, as follows:"
1. The primary substance is represented as an ocean of
light. The creation, or rather emanation, is represented
as a veil which the infinite light has spread out before
itself and upon which it wrote the forms of things. 2.
There was a primitive emanation, which, under the
name of" Adam Kadmon," is at once the image of God
and the type of man, and from which proceed decreasing
stages of emanations, called Sephiroth. 3. Matter has
only an ideal existence, because it is nothing but the ob
scuration of the divine rays when arrived at the last
stage of emanation. It is a sort of carbonization of the
divine substance."l
ARTICLE II. THE GR^CO-ORIENTAL SCHOOLS.
46. 1. The Gnostics arose in the first century of the
Christian era. They pretended to possess a knowledge
higher and more ancient than that of the Christian rev
elation. Their system was partly religious and partly
philosophical.
Cerinthus, the refutation of whom St. John seems to
have had in mind when he wrote his Gospel, was an early
Gnostic; another was Marcion. When St. Polycarp met
the latter in Rome, and was asked by him whether he
1 These speculations might not seem worthy of our attention, were
it not that the Freemasons, who teach this as the great secret," The
Light," claim a following of eight hundred thousand adult men in
the United States, in the midst of our Christian civilization. Thevast majority of them know not what absurdities are promised themin the revelation of "The Light."
The Alexandrian Schools. 49
did not know him, he answered,"
I know you to be the
first-born of the Devil." These men were not heretics
denying some portion of Christianity, but they were not
Christians at all: they introduced intermediate beings
between God and matter, because they considered it
philosophically impossible that the all-perfect Godshould act directly on matter.
The principal Gnostic of the third century was Manes,who renewed the dualistic system of the Persians (n. 9).
His followers, called after his name Manicheans, contin
ued teaching his errors. In the Middle Ages, under the
name of Albigenses, they overran portions of France,
desecrating and burning churches, murdering priests and
religious, till their army was defeated by Simon de Mont-
fort. They still plotted in secret, and it was to protect
religion and society against them that the tribunal of
the Inquisition was instituted.
47. 2. Neo-Platonism was a system in which the re
ligious notions of the East were blended with the speculations of the early Greek philosophers. It was funda
mentally a theory of emanations, like Brahmanism; but
it was developed scientifically by the admixture of some
teachings of Platonism. Another of its characteristics
was Oriental mysticism, combined with magic and necro
mancy.In its earliest form it was chiefly propagated by Ploti-
nus (A.D. 205 to 270). The first being, it teaches, is the
One, who is also the Good, the Absolute Unity, Simplic
ity, Infinity. It remains unchanged while there emanates from it what is called a mind (vofc) ;
because the
good must communicate itself. This mind, by turning
itself to the One, is differentiated from it. It sees all
50 Pre-Christian Philosophy.
ideas in itself, differentiating them by noticing them.
The souls of men emanate from this mind, as the mindemanates from the One. They are individualized by their
respective bodies, with which they were united after a
former state of higher excellence. All knowledge orig
inates in that mind. The highest happiness of men is in
the contemplation of the One. Moral evil consists for
the soul in yielding to the body, moral good in emanci
pating itself from the control of the body by practices of
asceticism.
The lofty views which Plotinus entertained of God,
the soul, the nature of virtue, etc., gained for him the
admiration of many generations, even among the early
Christian writers. St. Augustine extols him and Plato
above all other philosophers; for he says: "This voice of
Plato, the purest and grandest that there is in philoso
phy, was found once more in the mouth of Plotinus, whowas so like him that the one appeared to have risen again
in the other" (Con. Acad., Ill, 41).
Porphyry wrote extensively to explain Plotinus, in
which task he displayed great learning and keenness of
mind. He was a violent foe to Christianity, as was also
his successor lamblicus.
lamblicus was the leader of the Syrian Neo-Platonists.
He was a strong advocate of polytheism and of the use
of magical practices, with which he was so familiar that
his followers thought him capable of performing real
miracles. His philosophy was one of successive ema
nations, thus systematically defending the existence of
many gods.
Neo-Platonism continued to enjoy much favor with
the pagans, because it seemed to harmonize polytheism
The Alexandrian Schools. 51
with philosophy, and was thus their most powerful weapon of defense against the spreading of Christianity. It
flourished in Athens and Alexandria, until, in the sixth
century, its last able advocates and leaders of the school
were themselves converted to the religion of Christ in the
persons of Philiponus and Olympiodorus.
PART II.
PHILOSOPHY OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA.
48. We have seen that the Pre-Christian philosophyhad been worn out. While its votaries were occupied in
forming various new adaptations and combinations of
fragments of rejected systems, the Gospel truths began to
flood the world with a new, benignant light.
Many great minds soon accepted this higher wisdomin its fullness, and thenceforth used their reason for the
twofold purpose of spreading this salutary teaching fur
ther and further through the world, and of penetrating
deeper into the mysteries thus revealed.
Others, however, continued to make their reason the
ultimate judge of every individual truth. The former
attitude of mind was prevalent, though not universal,
during the first fifteen centuries of the new era; the latter,
which may be called the rationalistic, has been prevalentever since.
The philosophy of the Christian era may suitably be
divided into three periods :
1. The Patristic philosophy, extending to the invasion
of the barbarians;
2. The philosophy of the Middle Ages, extendingthence to the fifteenth century;
53
54 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
3. Modern philosophy, extending from the fifteenth
century to our own time.
From the invasion of the barbarians till the recon
struction of society, from A.D. about 400 to 800, all was
turmoil in Europe; philosophy was ignored: silent artes
inter arma.
SECTION I.
PATRISTIC PHILOSOPHY.
49. The Blessed Saviour and His Apostles taught dog
matically as having power to command absolute assent,
as may readily be seen exemplified in the Sermon on the
Mount, in the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of St.
Matthew s Gospel. Still even during the lifetime of the
Apostles several heresies, some of which had a philo
sophic cast, began to spread among Christians.
Some heretics, in the spirit of rationalism, strove to
adapt the Christian doctrines to certain ancient systemsof philosophy, as Philo had done with the truths of the
Old Testament. Their errors dealt chiefly with the
Logos, the Word, which they made an intermediate beingbetween God and the world. Others held to the dual-
istic explanation of evil, which they attributed to a cre
ator distinct from God (n. 46). Monarchianism, which
admitted but one person in God, and denied the Holy
Trinity, was a reaction against Manicheanism and Gnos
ticism (n. 46) . It made the Logos extrinsic to the Deity,
yet a good being, who was rewarded with the title of
God, and by whom God created all things. It was partly
with a view to refute this error that St. John began his
Gospel with the statement of the true doctrine, saying:" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
55
56 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
God and the Word was God. The same was in the be
ginning with God. All things were made by Him; and
without Him was made nothing that was made," etc.
Opposed to all these errors was the philosophy of the
Fathers, that is, of the early theologians of the Church.
Of these some wrote before and others after the General
Council of Nice.
CHAPTER I.
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS.
50. The earliest of the Fathers studied no philosophy,but merely explained the doctrines of revelation without
proving them by human reasoning. Then came those
who wrote for the purpose of defending Christianity
against the assaults of pretended philosophers, and whoare styled the "
Apologists." Of these the principal are:
1. St. Justin, the Philosopher and Martyr, A.D. 100 to
160; Athanagoras, who died about 180; Tatian and The-
ophilus, both before the year 200. All these center their
attention on the Word, or Logos as generated by the
Father, yet not separated from Him, eternal and one
with Him. Their language is often vague and sometimes
incorrect; for they were grappling with deep mysteries
which had not yet received a thorough examination bythe philosophic mind. Their defense of religion was
against the pagans.2. St. Irenceus was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who
himself had been instructed by the Apostle St. John.
Born in 140, he died a Martyr in 202. He and his dis
ciple St. Hippolytus wrote principally against the Gnos
tics, the Monarchianists and the Marcionites. His refu
tation of Gnosticism exists in a Latin translation. Heshows that in Christianity there is no secret Gnosis, nor
57
58 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
any Demiurgus; but God is directly the Creator of all
things; the Logos and the Spirit are one with God, one
simple Being. He teaches that God can be known from
His works, and that the better minds among the paganshad acquired such knowledge of Him. The law of God is
written in the hearts of men;moral evil is not in matter
but in our abuse of free will.
3. Tertullian, born at Carthage A.D. 160, was converted
to Christianity in 190. He became a most zealous and
able defender of the true religion against both pagansand heretics. But he erred through excessive rigor so
as to fall into open heresy. He may, however, have been
reconciled before his death, which occurred A.D. 240.
While the Church has always highly appreciated the
services rendered her by Christian writers, it must be
borne in mind that her doctrines do not rest on philo
sophic speculations of any men, as St. Paul emphatically
declares throughout the first three chapters of his
First Epistle to the Corinthians, saying, for instance:" Christ sent me .... to preach the Gospel, not in the wis
dom of speech, lest the Cross of Christ should be madevoid. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is
the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish
the wisdom of this world? My speech and my preach
ing was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom,but in the showing of the Spirit and of power, that you
might not stand on the wisdom of men but on the powerof God," etc.
4. Clement of Alexandria, who died in 217, exposed the
absurdities of paganism, and drew up a systematic ex
planation and defense of Christian dogma and morals.
He claims all that is good in Greek philosophy to have
The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 59
come from the Logos, or Word," Who enlighteneth every
man that cometh into this world" (John I, 9). Thetrue
" Gnosis "
is the teaching of the Church;the Christian
" Gnostic "
is the perfect Christian philosopher.5. Origen (185 to 254), a pupil of Clement, taught that
the Christian philosopher must take his stand on the
teachings of the Church; these he endeavored to explain
by views borrowed from Plato, Philo and the Neo-Plato-
nists. He fell into very considerable errors; for instance,
he defended the preexistence of human souls before the
birth of men, the eternal existence of the world, the final
restoration to grace of all spiritual beings; also the material nature of spirits, to which he assigns a very subtile
body.It is interesting to notice that, while St. Justin, Clem
ent of Alexandria, Origen and St. Augustine, with other
Fathers of the Church admired Greek philosophy, and
considered it as divinely designed to prepare the world
for the Gospel of Christ; Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius,
who has been surnamed the Christian Cicero, and others
considered the same philosophy as opposed to Christian
ity, and almost as invented by the Devil.
Clement and Origen, while renowned as Apologists of
the Faith, also enjoyed a high reputation as lecturers in
the Catechetical school of Alexandria, where they explainedthe truths of revelation, forming them into a consistent
body of doctrines, and supporting them by philosophical
reasonings. From such labors first arose the science of
theology.
CHAPTER II.
THE POST-NICENE FATHERS.
51. The Ecumenical Council of Nice, held A.D. 325,
the first of the nineteen General Councils of the Church,had drawn up a Creed which settled definitely for all
Catholics some of the most important teachings both of
philosophy and theology. The Creed begins thus: "I
believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God, born of the Father before all ages, God of God,
Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made,consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were
made," etc.
But as the Arians, the Gnostics and other opponentsof the Church continued to assail those truths, the de
fense of them gave occasion to the Post-Nicene Fathers
to write learned treatises on philosophical questions,
such, for instance, as regarded the relation between the
Logos and the Father, the nature of personality, of the
creation, etc.
The principal of these Fathers were, among the Greeks,
St. Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the
three Capadocian Saints Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and
Gregory of Nazianzum; and, among the Latins, Saints
Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. All of these
60
The Post-Nicene Fathers. 61
Fathers lived between A.D. 350 and 450. Most of their
writings are theological; still philosophical matters are
often treated in them. St. Augustine deserves our chief
attention.
52. Born at Tagaste in Numidia, Augustine studied
and taught rhetoric at Carthage, where he upheld the
errors of the Manicheans. Converted afterwards at
Milan by St. Ambrose, he nobly repaired the scandalous
conduct of his youth, and became the holy bishop of
Hippo Regius, in Africa, and one of the greatest glories
of the Church. In his many learned works he explains
and defends the Christian doctrine with the aid of the
Neo-Platonic philosophy. His teachings may be summarized as follows:
1. God is one, supreme, most perfect, eternal, immutable and omnipresent; who knew all things before they
existed, not knowing them because they are, but (except
free acts, of course) they are because He knows them;the Divine intellect comprises the prototypes, or exem
plars of all things.
2. The world, being composed of finite and variable
things, is evidently not self-existent, but produced from
nothing, created. Therefore God is a Being entirely dis
tinct from the world, and not the soul of the world; for
otherwise everything would be a part of God, which is
absurd. Besides, since nothing can control the will of
God, the motive why God created the world is His will
alone; and since a perfect God cannot create anythingbut what is good, evil does not come from Him directly
but from the finite nature of things.
3. The soul is immaterial, because it perceives immaterial things. It is, at least virtually, entire in the whole
62 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
body and in every part of the body, because at all points
it perceives impressions where they occur. It is certain
of its own existence; for if it doubted of it, this doubt
itself would prove it to exist. It is immortal because
it is capable of knowing immutable and eternal truths.
This brief sketch of St. Augustine s philosophy does
not furnish a fair appreciation of that extraordinary
man. His great mind gathered together all the elements
of Christian philosophy till then called into existence,
reduced them to unity, and left to succeeding ages a vast,
systematic body of truths. Not that he pretended to
have found the answer to every question of the human
mind; he freely acknowledged his ignorance on manypoints. But he displays, as Stoeckl expresses it, "such
depth of thought, such delicacy of discrimination, a
spirit of inquiry so fruitful in results, such a genuine ap
preciation of the ideal, such conclusive reasoning, as are
not often found in one man to the same degree. Godand the soul these were the objects to which his investi
gations were chiefly directed; the whole effort of his mindfound expression in the pregnant words Noverim Te,
noverim me, Let me know Thee (0 Lord) ,let me know
myself" (Finlay, p. 265).
53. The invasion of the barbarians, which began soon
after A.D. 400, in a brief time put an end to all study.The torch of philosophy kept on flickering in the writingsof a very few truly distinguished men, such as Boethius
(470 to 526) ;Cassiodorus (468 to 535) ;
St. John Damas
cene, who toward the end of the seventh century ex
plained Aristotle s Dialectics and Ontology; the Pseudo-
Dionysius, who was for many ages supposed to be
identical with Dionysius the Areopagite converted by St.
The Post-Nicene Fathers. 63
Paul at Athens (Acts xvii) ,and who treated Christian
ity in connection with the principles of Neo-Platonism;St. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, and Vener
able Bede in England (674 to 735).
We will conclude this section with a brief notice of
Boethius. He was a Roman senator, who lived at the
court of King Theodoric, by whom he was unjustly con
demned to death. He forms a bright link in the chain
which connects the philosophy of antiquity with that of
the Middle Ages. An earnest student of Plato and Aris
totle, and no less earnest a Christian, he produced, be
sides many valuable translations of ancient master
pieces, some truly classical works of his own, which were
for many subsequent ages the delight of scholars. Con
spicuous among these is the book which he wrote in
prison and styled the "Consolations of Philosophy." It
presents a Christian eclecticism from the best systems of
antiquity; and is, as it were, the last testament of his
noble mind, left to enrich future generations.
SECTION II.
MEDIEVAL, PHILOSOPHY.
54. The philosophy generally taught in the universi
ties of the Middle Ages is called the Philosophy of the
Schools, or Scholastic Philosophy. It consists in a con
stant effort to harmonize with one another the doctrines
of revelation and the teachings of reason. The Scho
lastic philosopher professes to be guided by these two
principles, intelligo ut credam and credo ut intelligam,
I understand so as to believe" and "I believe so as to
understand"; that is, reason bids me believe the Church
teaching, and faith aids my reason in two ways: it guards
my speculations from the wanderings of error in the field
of natural knowledge, and it opens up to me further
regions of knowledge.The Schools here spoken of were at first very modest
efforts made to light up the dark night of ignorancewhich the barbarian invaders had spread like a pall over
all Europe. The work was slow in the beginning, then
rapid, next brilliant, till it declined in brightness andusefulness. We have thus four periods of Medieval phi
losophy, namely the periods of formation, development,
perfection and decline.
65
CHAPTER I.
THE PERIOD OF FORMATION.
FROM A.D. 400 TO 1050.
55. While the bright light of Christianity was rapidly
spreading from Rome over the greater portion of Europe,a very dark cloud was drifting from the North southward
in the invasion of numerous barbarian races. In A.D.
407 the Vandals invaded Gaul, Burgundy and Spain,
finally settling in Africa, where they destroyed all civil
ization; in 410 Alaric with his Goths sacked the city of
Rome itself, which was three times plundered in sixty
years. Some fifty years later Attila with his Huns fol
lowed in his tracks, devastating chiefly Germany and
France. Meanwhile came the Franks, who settled in
Gaul, the Angles and Saxons, who invaded Britain, and
the Visigoths, who took possession of Spain and the
Southern portions of Gaul. All these invaders, except
perhaps the Franks, destroyed whatever civilization and
learning existed wherever they settled or passed; so that
the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth centuries are de
servedly styled Dark Ages.Yet Italy, under the immediate influence of the Popes,
had never totally abandoned the study of literature and
philosophy, nor, of course, of theology; Virgil, Cicero, St.
Augustine, Boethius and Cassiodorus, besides the Holy
Scriptures, were read in the schools, not of the clergy
alone, but also of the people.66
The Period of Formation. 67
In France little was taught the secular youths except
religion, war and courtly manners. Charlemagne was
there the first to found literary schools, in which reading,
Writing and the rudiments of grammar at first made upthe whole curriculum. He had lived a while in Italy,
and it was probably during his stay there that he re
solved to encourage letters in his own domains.
His teachers came mostly from Ireland, which countryhad preserved a knowledge and love of Greek and Latin
literature and the traditions of other kinds of ancient
learning. In fact the education thus introduced into
France was called Irish learning.
Still the noted scholar who first began to teach letters
in France was not an Irishman by birth, but the English
man Alcuin, who had studied at York. He was, how
ever, assisted by Clement and other Irish scholars. Al
cuin was the organizer and promoter of the new institu
tions of learning, and taught in them personally from
781 to 804. When the curriculum became fully organ
ized, it comprised two divisions: the trivium, consisting
of grammar, rhetoric and dialectics; and the quadrivium,
that is, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.
The only philosopher of name during this formative
period was the very talented but eccentric Scotus Eri-
gena. He attempted to combine theology and philoso
phy into one harmonious system; but, though a sincere
Christian at heart, he only succeeded in producing a
novel system of pantheism, which is described by his
contemporary Gerbert as rivaling in grandeur and gi
gantic character the bold creations of Indian philosophy.
But, since truth, and not originality, is the real test of
the value of a philosophy, his system was worthless.
68 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
This genius flourished in the middle of the ninth cen
tury.
Another philosopher of this period was Gerbert, of
Aquitaine, who in 999 became Pope under the name of
Sylvester II. He is said to have been the first to intro
duce Arabic numbers among Christian peoples, and to
have constructed clocks and other ingenious mechanisms. He was an acute disputant, and composed the
first treatise which compared the pros and cons of a question after a fashion that became very common amongsubsequent Scholastic writers.
This period of formation was remarkable for the estab
lishment of many schools in Ireland, England, France,
Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain and other countries.
Wherever, in fact, monasteries were founded, or bishopshad their sees, there arose institutions of learning. Sev
eral of them had three or more thousands of scholars,
who flocked to them even from distant lands, and were
generally taught gratis, often even supplied with the
necessaries of life. Thus originated many centers of en
lightenment, some of which have continued to exist dur
ing all the intervening ages till the present time.
Among these schools the Irish were the oldest and the
most numerously attended. Such were those of Ar
magh, Arran, Clonard, Clon-mac-noise, Clonfert, Bangor,
Birr, Lismore, Cashel and others. From Ireland mis
sionaries of religion and teachers of literature and
philosophy went forth to convert and civilize, by estab
lishing churches, monasteries and schools, probably in
every country of Europe. (See an article on "
Historyof Schools," by Rev. William Poland, S.J., in the American
Catholic Quarterly Review for April, 1903.)
CHAPTER II.
GROWTH OF SCHOLASTICISM.
FROM A.D. 1050 TO 1200.
56. The philosophic discussions of this period often
turn upon the nature of Universals, a question which
from that time to the present day has occupied the minds
of countless disputants. The question is this:" What ob
jective reality corresponds to our universal ideas, such
as animal, man, body, substance, cause, effect, etc.?"
Scotus Erigena, as a follower of Plato, had supposed the
real existence of universal objects outside the mind
(n. 24). This now was denied by Roscelin, who wrote
some two hundred and fifty years later; he died about
A.D. 1100. He truthfully maintained that universal ob
jects could not exist as such; but he went too far in the
opposite direction, and taught that even our ideas are
not universal; all we have, he said, were general names,thus founding the school of Nominalism.
This is one of the most important questions in philos
ophy, inasmuch as our knowledge is not true unless it be
conformable to the objective reality. If we have no uni
versal ideas, then we can have no general principles, and
therefore no science. If we have universal ideas but no
object at all exists for them out of the mind, then our
knowledge is false, because not conformable to the real
ity. Aristotle had solved the difficulty by teaching that
69
70 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
we have truly universal ideas and that the objects cor
responding to them out of our minds are the commonnatures of classes, or species, of things. For instance, our
universal idea "animal" represents whatever traits or
notes are common to all animals, and is realized in fiftfih
animal (n.l
J7y. But of Aristotle s works the Christian
schools possessed at the time only De Interpretation
and the Categories. Boethius had transmitted the true
explanation; but it was not generally noticed.
Starting thus from false principles, Roscelin was led
into false, and even heretical conclusions; and, thoughhe was a sincere Christian, and was not obstinate in his
errors, still his mistakes created confusion of minds, andfor a time made dialectics odious.
The confusion was increased by William of Champeau(1070-1121), who, if he has been correctly reported byhis opponent Abelard, considered the universals as ex
isting out of the mind and existing as universals; not in
an ideal world, as Plato had supposed, but in our ownworld. For instance, an animal was a universal animal,
one with every other existing animal, except in acci
dents. This doctrine would logically lead to monism.
Probably William did not mean this;but his terms were
infelicitous.
57. St. Anselm (1033-1109), born in Piedmont, be
came the renowned Archbishop of Canterbury, in England. He wrote various philosophical and theological
treatises, as occasions happened to require; but, besides
this, he built up a philosophic system, of which the main
features regard God, the Word of God and the liberty of
the human soul.
1. The existence of God he proves by various valid ar-
Growth 0} Scholasticism. 71
guments, especially by the necessity of a First Cause and
of an intelligent Ordainer; but, besides this, he invented
the ontological argument, which has made much noise
in the philosophic world. It may be stated briefly as
follows: We have an idea of an infinitely perfect being;
but an infinitely perfect being is necessarily an existing
being; for if it were not existing it would not be infinitely
perfect ;therefore an infinitely perfect being exists. What
really follows from the premise s that we have an idea
of a being which mustexisCjf/>ur
idea is objectively
true. The argument may be put in various forms, one
more deceptive than the other, but never so as to be
valid.
2. St. Anselm attempts to prove by reason alone that
the Word must exist in God, saying: God from eternity
must have had perfect knowledge of Himself and of all
possible things; but the knowledge of an infinite mind
must be expressed by an infinite Word, which is one with
God and yet proceeds from God; and, moreover, there
must be an infinite love between those two Persons,
which is the Holy Ghost. All this is true and beautiful,
but without revelation it would not give us certainty.
3. The freedom of the human will is defended by St.
Anselm with much ingenuity and dignity, but not with
perfect correctness; for his explanation cannot well be
reconciled with the preservation of man s freedom after
the fall of Adam.58. The most noted philosopher of this period was the
brilliant but erratic Pierre Aboard (about 1079 to 1142),
who, when a mere youth, drew crowds of eager disciples
around him at Paris, and, later in life, in various other
places. Intoxicated with his success he presumed to
72 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
make his own mind the measure of truth, even in matters
of revelation, rejecting such doctrines as stood in the
way of his speculations. He refused to believe in mysteries, saying: to what purpose would God reveal mysteries to us if we cannot understand them? His unortho
dox teachings on the Holy Trinity and other dogmaswere condemned in 1140. His pride met with a dis
graceful fall in connection with the notorious Heloise;
but it would appear that both atoned by public penancefor the public scandal. He opposed William of Champeauon the question of universals; but his own views on the
matter are not clear.
59. Peter the Lombard (1100-1160), styled the Master
of the Sentences, published a most useful work called" The
Four Books of Sentences," a collection of the teachings
of the Fathers on questions of Catholic doctrine, which
was for several centuries the common text-book of the
schools. It was made the subject of innumerable com
mentaries, so that it was in the thirteenth century the
core of scholastic literature.
The religious errors into which Roscelin and Abelard
had been led by their philosophic speculations producedin the school of the Abbey of St. Victor, near Paris, a
considerable distrust of dialectics; and influenced the
teachers there to maintain that the soul cannot attain
the purposes of philosophy by reason alone, but must be
elevated to this attainment by direct communings with
God, by what is called Mysticism. Usually Mysticismhad been the tendency of pantheistic philosophers; but
on this occasion it became, under proper limitations and
with due moderation, the doctrine of the orthodox writ
ers Hugh of St. Victor and his successor Richard, of the
Growth of Scholasticism. 73
same abbey. These were men of deep and sincere piety,
who wrote with much unction and considerable learning.
Their spirit of union with God in prayer and study was
fostered by the discourses and writings of their great
contemporary St. Bernard (1091 to 1153). But Walter
of St. Victor went much too far in his opposition to dia
lectics.
60. In the latter half of the twelfth century, a school
of philosophers at Chartres, in France, advocated some
altogether heretical theories, systems, in fact, of down
right pantheism. They falsely pretended to follow
Aristotle, whose treatises on Physics and Metaphysicshad lately been translated from the Arabic into Latin.
The ecclesiastical authorities at Paris, supposing the newerrors to be really derived from Aristotle s writings, for
bade the use of these works at the schools of the city,
until the errors which had been connected with them were
found to be foreign accretions to his doctrines; when the
prohjiHtTOH, was withdrawn.
lu 1254 the exposition of the Aristotelian Physics and
Metaphysics was sanctioned by the University of Paris,
and the sway of Aristotle s mind over the Christian
schools was finally established. Just as the "
Sentences"
of Peter Lombard formed the groundwork of theological
instruction, so the writings of Aristotle became the basis
of all philosophical teaching. Aristotle was spoken of as
me philosopher. Hence the numerous commentaries on
him by the Schoolmen became the treasury and the glory
of Scholastic philosophy.
61. We have just referred to the Arabic translators of
Aristotle. The Arabians had received Aristotle s works
at an early date from the Syrian and Persian Christians
74 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
who in 539 had sheltered the Greek philosophers then
banished from Athens by the Emperor Justinian. After
the Arabians had become Mahometans, they cared onlyfor the learning of the Koran, till the middle of the eighth
century. Then dissidents arose among them, who soon
began to build their speculations, first on Neo-Platonism,
and afterwards on Aristotle.
The ablest of their philosophers were Avincenna (980-
1037) and Avenoes (1127-1198), both of whom defended
Aristotle against the mysticism of their countrymen.The latter author says: "Aristotle s doctrine is the high
est truth, because his intellect was the ne plus ultra of the
human intellect." The Arabians, however, misrepre
sented some of these teachings in their commentaries,and they seem to have even mistranslated the works
themselves. Among the many errors of Averroes was
his view of the human intellect, which he took to be an
impersonal power, one in all men, and immortal, while
there was no immortality for each individual soul.
It was against this error that Albert the Great, in 1256,
wrote his treatise" On the Unity of the Intellect Against
Averroes," and St. Thomas "On the Unity of the In
tellect Against the Averroists." These Averroists were
Christians, who, to escape the condemnation of the
Church, pretended that what they defended as true in
philosophy might be false in theology, so that they should
not be interfered with.
62. During this same period many Jews also devoted
themselves to the study of philosophy ;Moses Maimonides
was the greatest of their Aristotelians (1135-1204). In
the Moorish portions of Spain the Jews enjoyed at the
time special advantages; for in the same region the Ma-
Growth of Scholasticism. 75
hometans had not yet begun to tolerate such studies
among themselves. They translated the Greek authors
into Hebrew, from which language the Christians ren
dered them into Latin. Soon after, however, the Greek
texts were brought from the East into the Christian
schools, and correct copies and good Latin translations
were thus secured.
CHAPTER III.
PERFECTION OF SCHOLASTICISM.
FROM A.D. 1200 TO 1300.
63. The most renowned philosophers of this periodwere the following :
.CA</t -<
.
1. Alexander of Hales, born in England, was the first
Franciscan Father who lectured at the Paris University,where the secular clergy had till then held exclusive sway.He was also the first author who wrote there after the
introduction of all Aristotle s works. He composed a
Summa of Universal Theology, giving it the form which
was afterwards adopted by St. Thomas Aquinas; namely,first laying down the objections against a thesis, then the
proof of it, and next refuting the objections. He strove,
with only partial success, to combine the teachings of
Aristotle with those of St. Augustine, which had so far
been dominant in the schools. The great work which he
accomplished was the outlining of the plan followed after
him in all the great "Summae." He died in 1245. Hehas been styled Doctor Irrefragabilis.
2. William of Paris, who died in 1249, wrote philo
sophical treatises" On the Universe " and " On the Soul,"
in which he displays a very keen intellect and much eru
dition. He had completely mastered the systems of
Plato, Aristotle and the Arabian philosophers. These
last he refuted with distinguished ability and success.
76
Perfection of Scholasticism. 77
3. Vincent de Beauvais, who died A.D. 1264, in aworkwhich he entitled "A Mirror," Speculum, gave to the
world an encyclopedia of all the learning of his day.
4. St. Bonaventure, Doctor Seraphicus, a pupil of Hales
and a Franciscan like him, began his lectures in the Paris
University the same year as St. Thomas Aquinas, A.D.
1257. He became the general of the Franciscan Order,
and was made a Cardinal by Gregory X. He was the
leader of the Franciscan School, as St. Thomas was of the
Dominican. Although they were constantly united bythe bonds of a holy friendship, they differed on important
points of philosophy and theology. In particular the
Franciscans taught the plurality of forms in plants and
animals, which the Thomistic School denied. St. Bona
venture leans to the mysticism of Hugh of St. Victor
(n. 60). Both he and St. Thomas died the same year,
1274.
5. Roger Bacon, Doctor Mirabilis, born in 1214, first
studied at Paris, then at Oxford, became a Franciscan
and one of the most famous professors of that university.
He entered on that method of observation and experi
ment which, three centuries later, gained so much favor
for his namesake Lord Bacon. Brilliant and bold in his
speculations, but destitute of proper respect for author
ity, he wandered into deplorable errors. In particular
he admitted no deductive, but only inductive reasoning.
While he made important scientific discoveries, he de
stroyed his influence by the extravagance of some of his
claims, and eventually rendered but little permanentservice to science and philosophy.
6. Blessed Albert the Great, the Universal Doctor (1193-
1280), had mastered a wonderful knowledge considering
78 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
the times he lived in;for he possessed all the learning of
that age, and, along with it, he had acquired an insight
into the natural sciences far beyond the reach of his con
temporaries. In philosophy he carefully selected all the
best teachings of Plato and Aristotle, and also gave due
credit to the Jews and the Arabians, freely criticising
every "doctrine as he handled it. While lacking in the
special talent required to build up a compact system,he prepared for his pupil St. Thomas the elements of his
future works.
7. St. Thomas of Aquin, the Angelic Doctor (1225-
1274), the glory of the Friars Preachers and of all the
Church, was the greatest of all writers on philosophy and
theology combined. To analyze his teachings ade
quately would require a good-sized volume; in fact ordi
nary text-books on these two sciences in Catholic schools
to-day are chiefly compendiums of the doctrines which
are scattered through his numerous works. Besides
many minor treatises, which are now usually collected
under the title Questiones Disputatce (Mooted Questions),
and Questiones Quotlibetales (Miscellaneous Questions) ,he
composed two extensive works, "The Summa Against the
Gentiles," which is a complete vindication, or apology, of
the Church against the charges of non-Christians, and
the Summa Theologica, the summing up of all his philo
sophical and theological learning. The former has lately
been translated into English, under the title of" God and
His Creatures," by Rev. Joseph Rickaby, S. J.
In particular St. Thomas teaches on philosophic matters as follows:
Qj Science is the knowledge of things through their
causes. 2. Theology and philosophy differessentially
Perfection of Scholasticism. 79
by their formal objects; that is, tbqy view the matters
treated differently; philosophy views them by the light
of reason, theology by the light of faith. Since both
these lights come from God, these sciences cannot con
flict with one another. 3. Science can aid faith in sev
eral ways: (a) By furnishing motives of credibility; (6)
by supplying analogies; (c) by solving objections. Onthe other hand, faith can aid reason by cautioning it
against error, and by enlarging the field of knowledge.4. All science deals, not with individuals, but with UPJ-
versals. 5. The universals exist as ideas or exemplarsin the mind of the Creator, and are formed in the humanmind by abstraction from individual things. 6. Not
all the sciences furnish the same kind of certainty.
Two doctrines of St. Thomas were vigorously opposed,
especially by the Franciscans; namely^the unity of the
substantial form in man, and thffidenial of rationes sem-
inales, that is, of certain principles created together with
matter, and cooperating with the agent in the production
of the effect.
8. John Duns Scotus, who taught from 1294 to 1308
at Oxford and Paris, was the brightest luminary amongthe Franciscans; but he was a meteor rather than a sun.
He is deservedly called" the Subtle Doctor," Doctor Sub-
tilis, because he is the keenest of critics, finding flaws in
all systems; but he is hard to follow in his subtle dis
quisitions. With all his brilliancy, he has added noth
ing of importance to the science of philosophy. The
Franciscan writers followed him, under the name of
Scotists, in opposition to the Thomists, or followers of St.
Thomas.
9. Raymond Lully," the Enlightened Doctor," Doctor
80 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
Illuminatus, was most active in refuting Averroism.
While zealously devoting his missionary labors to the
conversion of the Moors, he was stoned at Tunis in 1315.
He made the mistake of maintaining that we need the
light of faith to enable our reason to start even in its
efforts for the attainment of the highest truths. He was
so ingenious as to invent a logical machine, which bymeans of geometrical figures combined letters as ele
ments of thought into the expression of arguments. Hewas so much admired by some that chairs were estab
lished at Barcelona and Valentia to perpetuate his en
lightened wisdom; while by others he was considered
as unorthodox; and this fact seems to have been the chief
reason why he was not canonized.
CHAPTER IV.
DECLINE OF SCHOLASTICISM.
FROM A.D. 1300 TO 1453.
64. The purpose of Scholasticism had been all along to
build up an harmonious system of philosophy and the
ology combined, in which each of these sciences should
rest on its own basis, reason and revelation respectively,
and the truths proclaimed by one should nowhere be in
contradiction with those maintained by the other. For
this harmony of the two sciences is the very idea and
definition of Scholasticism.
This structure had now been completed; it was Scho
lasticism in its perfection. Within each of these sciences
there were disputed points, which gave occasion for the
formation of different schools; the Thomists and the
Scotists were the principal of these, but not the only
ones. Universals continued to be much discussed be
tween Nominalists, Conceptualists and Moderate Realists.
Mysticism, too, both of the orthodox and of the pantheistic variety, found its defenders in several doctors.
But on the whole the discussions had lost their main
purpose, that of harmonizing faith and reason; and they
became more and more trifling, minute and useless, de
generating from their former importance and dignity.
When we call this a period of decline, it is not to indi
cate that truth was diminished among the learned, or
81
82 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
false views had become prevalent; but the form of dis
cussing the truths was perverted in various ways: 1.
The language became more and more uncouth, harsh and
deficient in literary ornament. 2. Arguments for and
against a thesis were multiplied and drawn out beyondall reasonable measure. 3. Each disputant often seemed
to fight for the honor of his school rather than for the
triumph of the truth. These tendencies went on in
creasing till odium became attached to Scholasticism
itself; and they gave occasion to the enemies of sound
doctrine to heap ridicule on its defenders.
65. While the learned generally, during this period,
possessed the truth in peace, disputing only about un
important points in matters of detail, a few conspicuousleaders of thought wandered away from the highroad of
sound doctrine; the principal of whom were Durand andWilliam of Ocham. Durand, a Dominican professor at
Paris, styled Doctor Resolutissimus, was a bold thinker
and writer, who attacked various theses which he failed
to understand aright; yet he happily kept within the
limits of revealed truth. He has been called the Lockeof Scholastic philosophers, because, like Locke, he wasan earnest, well-meaning but superficial critic. After
making much noise but accomplishing little good, he
died in 1332.
William of Ocham, an Englishman (1280-1349?), Doc
tor Invincibilis, was a rash and bitter opponent of Thorn-
ism, and of the temporal power of the popes. He re
vived Nominalism, or rather changed it into Conceptual-
ism, teaching that we have universal ideas, but denyingall universality in the objects; and he made various other
mistakes of no small moment. For instance, he denied
Decline of Scholasticism. 83
that reason can demonstrate the immortality of the soul,
the existence, unity and infinity of God, or the creation
of the world. During the fourteenth century Nominalism had some able defenders; but the body of the School
men remained faithful to Moderate Realism.
66. The idle discussion of interminable questions dis
gusted at the time many earnest lovers of truth and vir
tue, and led them to abandon intellectual philosophy,and devote themselves to a life of contemplation and
union with God. John Ruysbroek was the founder of
this school of Mysticism. His pupil Gerhart de Groot
founded the Brothers of the Common Life, who for some
generations were most pious teachers of youth in Ger
many, Belgium, Holland and other countries, until theywere swept away by the storm of the Reformation.
The best known among these Brothers was Thomas a
JCewyns (1380-1471), whose celebrated book, ""the Imi
tation of Christ" is the most convincing proof that the
highest wisdom may be attained by men of genuine piety
and common sense without much abstract speculation.
As a specimen of his manner of philosophizing see Book
I, Chapters I, II, III.
Chancellor Gerson,oi the Paris University, called Doctor
Christianissimus (about 1364-1429), was the most dis
tinguished and influential among the orthodox mystics.
Denis the Carthusian, Doctor Ecstaticus, was another of
their brilliant lights. Henry Suso (1300-1365) wrote
with uncommon gentleness and piety, so as to gain the
hearts of all.
But from the fact that the Mystics undervalued close
and accurate reasoning, many of them fell into great er
rors, some even into pantheism, as did John of Gand,
84 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
John de Mirecourt and Guido de Medonta. Others had at
least a taint of unsoundness about them. Such were
Master Eckhart (1260-1361) and John Tauler (1290-
1361), both of whom remained indeed within the Church,but they had little regard for ecclesiastical authority.
Their errors were both philosophical and theological,
concerning chiefly the nature of God and the soul s rela
tions to God.
SECTION III.
MODERN PHILOSOPHY.
67. While philosophy in its enfeebled condition had
lost its interest for most of the thoughtful minds of the
fifteenth century, it happened that many Greek scholars
were driven from the East by the advancing tide of the
Moslem invasion. By these a general enthusiasm was
enkindled in the West of Europe in favor of a revival, or
Renaissance, of the study of Greek and Latin literature
and the fine arts generally. More attention began to be
bestowed on elegant form of expression than on sound
ness of thought; and the natural beauty so prized by the
ancient pagans was soon preferred by many of the lit
erati to the supernatural treasures of Christian literature.
From the fact that they extolled mere human excellency
as the summum bonum in education, the name ofjEjTw^
manists was given to the new scholars. They gainedfurther popularity by heaping ridicule and contempt on
Scholastic treatises and disputations. The blame was
often somewhat deserved; but the mistake was usually
made of imputing to the philosophy the shortcomingsof the philosophers who at the time defended it.
We shall divide the section on Modern Philosophy into
three portions, corresponding to three periods: 1. The
period of transition, from the fall of Constantinople, in
A.D. 1454 to the year 1600. 2. The period from Descar
tes to Kant, from 1600 to 1780; and 3. From Kant to
the present year 1909.
CHAPTER I.
THE TRANSITION PERIOD.
FROM A.D. 1454 TO 1600.
68. The earnest study of philosophy in connection
with theology continued uninterrupted in Italy, Spainand Portugal, and produced there during this periodsome of the richest fruits of human learning. In partic
ular, extensive and most able commentaries were then
written on the works of St. Thomas and Duns Scotus,
masterpieces that remain the admiration and the treas
ure of students till the present day. The principal of
them were composed by Cardinal Cajetan, who lived from
1469 to 1534; by Melchior Cano, from 1509 to 1560;
Bafiez, 1528 to 1604; and by the Jesuits Vasquez, 1531 to
1604, Fonseca, 1528 to 1599, and Suarez, 1548 to 1617.
The works of the last-named philosopher and theologian
comprise twenty-three volumes in folio.
After printing was invented in 1440, books multiplied
exceedingly, and thus a strong impulse was given to general enlightenment, and not less to pride of intellect in
many scholars. Even the Holy Scriptures were criti
cised by some as too deficient in beauty of style to be
read without prejudice to pure Latinity. Large num
bers, both of the clergy and laity, spent much time in ex
alting and imitating the pagan models, to the serious
neglect of sacred learning and other more importantduties.
86
The Transition Period. 87
The Humanists, together with Plato s cultured style,
also brought back his philosophic system. This wasdone by Cardinal Bessarion, a Greek (1400-1457); while
the two brothers John and Francis Pico delta Mirandola
fiercely attacked the followers of Aristotle. Justus Lip-sius revived Stoicism; Paracelsus, the reformer of the
medical science, introduced a mixture of chemistry and
theosophy ; Montaigne and Charron promoted Scepticism.Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) maintained the perfect
identity of nature and God. An apostate and a violent
enemy of Christianity, he traveled through various
lands, everywhere arousing the indignation of Catholics
and Protestants alike, till at last he returned to Rome,where he was publicly burned as a rebel against Church
and State. It is owing to this pitiful death that he has
of late been idolized by the enemies of the Pope.69. Francis Bacon (1561-1626), who became Lord
Chancellor of England with the title of Baron Verulam,
inaugurated the scientific movement of the inductive
study of nature. His chief work is called Instauratio
Magna, and claims to be a general reconstruction of
science. The part of it which is styled Naw4m Or-
ganum explains the inductive process as a(ne^Miool of
the mind by which knowledge can be acquired, and which
had never before been properly explained to men. True
Aristotle had treated of it, but he had not revealed its
entire efficacy. The real important service rendered byBacon to mankind was not one invention or another, but
a new direction given to the investigation of truth, name
ly by the personal and close observation of nature.
Roger Bacon and Albert the Great had inaugurated the
movement, Lord Bacon rendered it popular; that is all
b
-
88 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
he did. (Regarding the excess of praise lavished on him,see American Catholic Quarterly Review for January,
1908, pages 138, etc.)
He also insisted earnestly on the necessity of removingfrom the mind preconceived opinions never before care
fully submitted to examination. He classes such prejudices into distinct categories, namely: (a) Idols of the
tribe, that is, false notions common to the whole human
race; (6) idols of the den, errors arising from peculiarities
of character; (c) idols of the marketplace, from our own
associations; (d) idols of the theater, from traditional
teachings. No doubt most of our prejudices arise from
one of these sources, and it was useful to call attention to
them. But the same had often been done by others;
for instance, Roger Bacon had pointed out the followingfour sources of prejudices: (a) Trusting inadequate au
thorities; (6) the force of custom; (c) confiding in the
opinion of the inexperienced; (d) hiding one s ignorancewith the parade of a superficial wisdom. Lord Baconalso made the mistake of assailing the value of deductive,
or syllogistic reasoning, against which he created a most
unjust prejudice, which has been perpetuated till now in
many superficial minds.
70. By this time Protestantism had arisen, and with it
protracted warfare in several lands, with great injury
to scientific studies in almost all civilized countries.
However, the Reformation did not make an immediate
change in the systems of philosophy taught in the uni
versities. In these, traditional Aristotelianism longheld its honored place, in a form, however, adapted byMelanchthon to the needs of Protestant dogma. Meanwhile hostile attacks on Peripateticism continued and
The Transition Period. 89
grew more violent. Besides the objections brought
against its followers by the Humanists, Protestants as
such generally looked upon it as a strong bulwark of the
Catholic Church, of traditional orthodoxy and of author
ity in religion.
Jacob Boehme (1575-1624) is the chief representativeof Protestant Mysticism. Before him, Frank and Weigelhad formed such systems; but Boehme carried this
method of thought to its most extreme consequences.He was a totally uneducated man, whose ignorance was
all the more mischievous on account of his extraordinaryearnestness and infatuation. He based his system on
visions of God obtained by prayer. God constitutes the
essence of all things, he maintained, and contains goodand evil. Nature is the body of God, the stars are its
organs and their orbits its arteries. His vagaries did
not deserve the serious notice of the philosophers; but as
he wrote in the language of the people, the German
tongue, he greatly increased the confusion of thoughtthen existing in his country.
71. During this same period Political Philosophy had
attracted the attention of the learned all the more gen
erally as it led to more practical consequences.
1. Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), in his work II
Principe, had produced a political philosophy of State
Utilitarianism, which assailed Christian principles, teach
ing that, when it is a question of saving one s country,
there must be no hesitation on the score of justice or
injustice, cruelty or kindness, etc. This was a partial
application of the false principle that the end may justify
the means.
2. Very different was the spirit manifested by Blessed
90 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
Thomas More (1478-1535) in his Utopia, in which he
describes an imaginary republic so governed as to secure
happiness for all its members. From the title of that
work the present meaning of the word "Utopia" has
been derived, namely an imaginary condition of life
beautiful in theory but impossible in practice. Made
by King Henry VIII Lord Chancellor of England, he
refused to acknowledge that tyrant as spiritual head of
the Church in his dominions, and in consequence was
made a martyr for the faith.
3. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) reaffirmed the old error
of Nominalism. He was also a materialist, a sensist, and
a subjectivist inasmuch as he denied the objective quali
ties of things perceived. He taught, for instance, that
color exists in the perceiver only, not in the objective
reality. There is certainly in objects of sense the powerto cause various sensations in the perceiver. His polit
ical theory is that of the Social Contract, namely, that
every man is naturally at war with all other men: Homohomini lupus; therefore, to protect themselves against
others, men have agreed to vest their rights in the State.
The State s power is absolute;the will of the ruler is sov
ereign law, above any right of conscience or religion.
4. Hugo Grotius, or De Groot (1557-1628) is the father
of the science of International Law, which he styles Jus
Gentium. Though correct on most principles, he ad
vocated novel and erroneous views on the separation of
Church and State, on religious liberty, etc.
72. It will be noticed that this period of the Renais
sance did not produce any grand system of philosophy.
Owing especially to the invention of printing, it had
given a general impulse to mental action in the common
The Transition Period. 91
people; and, owing to the influx of Greek scholars, it had
improved elegance of style in literature and widened ap
preciation of the fine arts; but it had not prompted the
learned to cultivate deep and solid thought. It had,
however, greatly promoted the physical sciences. It had
also pulled down much that was antiquated and useless,
and removed many false notions; but not without intro
ducing many others often far more injurious. It claimed
to have done wonders, to have, in fact, produced a total
rebirth of civilization; but the claim was an idle boast.
All this will be easily realized if one reads the late work
of Dr. James J. Walsh entitled "The Thirteenth the
Greatest of Centuries."
CHAPTER II.
FROM DESCARTES TO KANT.
FROM 1600 TO 1780.
ARTICLE I. CARTESIANISM.
73. Rene" Descartes, in Latin Cartesius (1596-1650),
though he had been trained by the Jesuits in the Scho
lastic philosophy, and remained through life a goodfriend of his former professors, presumed to ignore the
accumulated wisdom of the ages, and to build the whole
structure of philosophy anew. He thus became the ac
knowledged founder of Modern Philosophy. The spirit
of his system consistsJin questioning the reliability of the
first dictates of (reason, and in attempting to prove the
primary truths while they need no proof, for man cannot
reasonably doubt them. Starting with the reasoning
Cogito, ergo sum, "I think, therefore I exist," he claims
that he thus validly establishes his own existence. Find
ing in his mind the clear idea of God, he concludes from
it the existence of God. And from the perfections of
the Creator, he argues that the faculties which the Cre
ator has given him must be reliable. But all throughthis reasoning, he has been taking his understanding to
be reliable ;he thus moves in a vicious circle. The main
error of Descartes and his followers is that they arbitrar
ily accept some truths as certain and doubt others which
are equally evident.
92
From Descartes to Kant. 93
Besides this inconsistency, his system combines a
great variety of other serious errors. For instance, he f^*mistakes thought, which is only an accident of the mind, ^for the essence of the mind, and extension for the total
essence of matter. Now, since thought and extension
have nothing in common, he concludes therefrom that
the soul and the body cannot act on each other. A fluid,
called Spiritus animates, conveys the sense stimuli to
the pineal gland, and, returning through the nerves to
the muscles, conveys the impulse of motion to the limbs.
In brutes there is no feeling of this; they are only au
tomata. In man the soul perceives the affection and
acts in consequence.While most of our ideas are "adventitious," obtained
through the senses, or "factitious," made up by our
selves, we have natural dispositions to form certain other
ideas which he calls "innate." He rejects the entire
Scholastic doctrine of "matter and form," and.admits in
bodies only motions of material particles from which all
their activity results.
Descartes s teaching directly influenced the philosophyof the leading writers in France and other lands for over
a century after his death;and indirectly it has perverted
modern philosophy till the present day.
If he has been extolled as a great philosopher, it is not
because he discovered any valuable truth; in fact, his
entire system has long since been abandoned by the
learned world, and it is utterly inconsistent with the
present state of science. But he was admired on account
of his boldness and originality in breaking away from
the old landmarks. Truth was of less value to him than
novelty. Besides, Aristotelianism was considered to be
94 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
concordant and intimately united with Catholicity;
therefore the non-Catholic world heartily welcomed a
departure from it.
74. The principles of Descartes received further de
velopments at the hands of some of his disciples; in particular of Geulincx in Belgium (1625-1669), and Male-
branche, in France (1638-1715). The latter maintained
that causality is an attribute of God alone. Even in
sense perception it is not we who act, but God puts the
knowledge of the object into our minds, on occasion
merely of its presentation to our senses. The error is
therefore called "
Occasionalism." God also exhibits to
us in Himself any ideas He grants us: "we see all thingsin God." This is Ontologism, so called because it pretends that we get our ideas directly from things (ovra)
existing in God and presented to our minds.
ARTICLE II. CONFUSION CONSEQUENT ON CARTESIANISM.
75. Baruch Spinoza (1632^1677) was the father of
modern Pantheism, oj^Monismj, that is, belief in the ex
istence of only one substance. Born at Amsterdam of
Jewish parents, he was excommunicated by the Syna
gogue for errors of doctrine. At the Hague he led a re
tired scholarly life, supporting himself by polishing lenses,
while he corresponded with the most learned men of
Europe. His entire system is founded on a mistaken
definition of substance, as a thing which exists in se, in
itself, and is conceived per se, that is, which, in order to
be conceived, does not need a prior conception of any
thing else. He calls it self-caused, which is a contradic
tion in terms. He concludes from this wrong definition
From Descartes to Kant. 95
that God is the only substance, for only one being can
be self-existent; all other things are only determinations
of God; they are God limited. This doctrine makes all
men to be God, and therefore incapable of doing wrong;it destroys all morality, all law, all duty.
76. John Locke (1632-1704) has influenced thought in
English-speaking countries to a remarkable extent. His
style is excellent, his character was upright, he sincerely
aimed at undoing some of the harm caused by Descartes,
and he did refute his theory of innate ideas triumphantly;but at the same time he fell into serious errors, and
unwittingly led his countrymen astray from true
philosophy.
For, after proving that we have no inborn ideas, he
leaves us no knowledge but what the senses can graspand what the mind can observe in itself; now the senses
can grasp only material accidents, and the mind onlywhat the senses bring into it, and its own acts, which are
also accidents; therefore he admits no real knowledge of
swbstoggg. He defines substance as merely the complexidea of that which upholds and supports the simple ideas
of color, taste, etc. The senses do not take in anything
universal; therefore he admits no universal ideas, but
teaches Nominalism. He also distinguishes nominal
from real essences; we know the nominal essences, he
says; that is, the complex ideas of color, sound, weight,
etc., of bodies; but we do not know their real essence,
that is, the inmost nature of any of them, for instance of
a man, a brute, a plant, etc. Another leading error is
his confusion of ideas with phantasms; for he says that the
senses bring ideas into the passive mind. This error has
become traditional in English philosophy, and it is to-
96 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
day at the root of various false systems of psychologyand epistemology.His premises logically lead to materialism; but his
common sense made him refuse to draw such conse
quences. He is justly, called the father of modernSensism
; for, instead of innate ideas, which Descartes
had taught, he gives us only sense knowledge. In morals he made self-interest and the good of the many the
norm of right; in politics he wisely exalts the peopleabove the ruler; for the ruler is for the benefit of the
people, not the reverse.
77. Once the nature of morality had begun to be dis
cussed, a large variety of novel theories on this matter
was put forth by English writers, and from England im
ported into France. The principal of these were the
following:
1. Lord Shaftesbury (1671-1713) makes the norm of
right and wrong consist in an innate esthetic sentiment,
by which we perceive the proper balance of our selfish
and our social impulses.. 2. Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) argues that private
vices are public benefits; for the excessive desire of food
and drink, the passions of ambition, envy, impatience,
etc., lead to labor, civilization, social life, etc. This the
ory was indignantly assailed by many; but it has pre
vailed in the teachings of Hutcheson, Butler, AdamSmith and others.
3. Francis Hutcheson (1694-1747) claims that we have
a moral sense of what is beneficial for others and a nat
ural love of the same. This sense acts in us as instinct
does in animals; it is God s provision to make men seek
the good of others as well as their own.
From Descartes to Kant. 97
4; Joseph, Butler (1692-1752) claims that the rule of
right and wrong in us is our "conscience." Conscience,
however, in his theory is not a deduction of practical
reason, but a peculiar faculty directly approving and
disapproving right and wrong acts.
5. Adam Smith (1723-1790) the celebrated author of
"The Wealth of Nations/ and the father of Political
Economy, makes "sympathy" the rule of morality, call
ing an action good if it can elicit the sympathy of the
spectators.
These English moralists, though theoretically destroy
ing all true morality, produced no very deep impressionon the British nation. But the poison of their empirical
doctrines, when carried into France by Voltaire and
Montesquieu, developed into rank materialism, hedon
ism and atheism, thus preparing the way for the French
Revolution and the Reign of Terror.
78. France, too, originated some novel theories. 1. The
AbbeCondillac (1715-1780) taught absolute Sensism;for he
denied all knowledge except that of sensation. To explain
how man gradually acquires knowledge, he imagines a
statue which is first endowed with the sense of smell, and
gradually with the other senses, last of all with the sense
of touch. At first the statue experiences only pleasantand unpleasant feelings of various kinds, till the touch
gives exernality to its perceptions. It is only by his
superior sense of touch that man is above the brute. The
good is the pleasing, evil that which displeases. Such
false suppositions must of course lead to false conclusions.
2. Helvetius (1694-1771) puts self-interest as man s
only motive of action. All differences among men arise
from differences of education.
98 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
3. Voltaire (1694-1771) in his" Dictionaire Fhilosophio
Portatif" spread broadcast all kinds of superficial and
false ideas for the express purpose of destroying Chris
tianity. He was no atheist, but a bitter hater of the
Church. His main strength lay in his boldness, super
ficiality and effective style, seasoned with keen sarcasm.
4. The Encyclopedia, or "Dictionaire Raisonne" des
Arts, des Sciences et des Metiers," published from 1751
to 1772, promoted the same purpose. It was sceptical,
designedly irreverent and brilliant with keen wit and
caustic satire. Diderot, d Alembert, Voltaire, Holbach
and Rousseau were its principal authors.
5. La Mettrie (1709-1751) identifies the soul with the
brain, the perfection of which constitutes man s superior
ity over the brute.
6. Cabanis (1757-1808) makes thought a mere secre
tion of the brain.
7. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) advocates a
return to the primitive state of nature, the savage state;
he teaches that all authority is from the people throughthe social contract, and he would reform all education to
suit such theories.
All these false teachings demoralized the French peo
ple, and ultimately brought about the Reign of Terror.
Napoleon restored order by main force and able legis
lation; but he did not restore sound thought. Hence the
atheism that has ever since been corroding religion and
morality in France.
ARTICLE III. THE IDEALISTIC MOVEMENT.^
79. 1 . Leibnitz (1648-1716) was one of the greatest geni
uses of modern times; he invented Calculus and the prin-
From Descartes to Kant. 99
ciple of preestablished harmony, the law of continuity,
etc. We mean by the law of continuity that, among all
existing beings in the universe, there is a gradual ascent
from the meanest to the noblest without a break in the
series. He defines substance as an independent powerof action. The universe consists of monads, or ultimate
elements; every one of which is a substance indivisible
and indestructible. Each monad reflects all the other
monads, consciously in spirits, unconsciously in mere
matter, and perfectly in the one grand monad, God.
God has so arranged all the monads that they act im-
manently, or within themselves, in a preestablished har
mony. The only proof of all this is that so it is best,
and God always does what is best. Ideas are worked
out in every soul, which are not derived from outward
objects; yet they are true, because they are in harmonywith their objects. The whole system is merely a priori,
a fancy structure.
2. George Berkeley (1685-1753), a Protestant bishopof Cloyne, in Ireland, taught that we know ideas only,
not things; for all that we call qualities of matter de
pends on the mind, which groups various subjective ex
periences, and attributes to them objective being. Theyexist only in our mind: esse est percipi, that is, "the only
being of things is their being perceived." Yet all these
phenomena are orderly, constituting a cosmos, not a
chaos; for God produces them in our minds. There exist
only spirits, not bodies.
3. David Hume (1711-1776) drew the ultimate con-,
elusions from Descartes s and Locke s false principles byreducing all knowledge to mere phenomenalism, denyingour certainty with regard to the existence of either body
100 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
or mind. In his "Treatise on Human Nature" he lays
down the principle that our knowledge cannot reach
beyond our experience. In his "Enquiry ConcerningHuman Understanding" he maintains that we have no
experience except of mental states, not even of the sub
stantiality of our minds. Nor do we know causality,
but only the constant relation of succession, as of the
Sun shining and crops growing. We naturally expectthat things formerly conjoined will always be so; but wehave no right to expect this if there is no causality. The
logical outcome is scepticism, and metaphysics becomes
an idle dream.
All subsequent systems of what is called Modern Phi
losophy are only efforts more or less original to correct
glaring defects in preceding systems, or attempted sub
stitutes for them.
CHAPTER III.
FROM KANT TO OUR OWN TIME.
FROM 1780 TO 1909.
80. The current of philosophic thought, after Latin
had ceased to be the common language, became divided
among the nations; philosophy itself became nationalized.
ARTICLE I. GERMAN PHILOSOPHY.
Immanuel Kami (1734-1804) had been captivated for
a while by Hume s phenomenalism, when his mind re
belled against it for several reasons, in particular be
cause the science of mathematics is evidently not a mere
collection of phenomena. On the other hand he was
unwilling to admit definite teachings, which he called
dogmas, such as the existence of God, that of the soul,
etc., and even the veracity of our faculties. He under
took, therefore, to make a critical examination of all our
knowledge, which he styled "A Critique of the Pure
Reason." By a critique Kant means an attempted
scrutiny of the range and validity of our knowledge.
Dogmatism, he says, assumes the reliability of our fac
ulties, scepticism rejects it, he pretends to examine it.
But at bottom he must admit or deny it; he really denies
it.
He begins by teaching that our mind has receptivity101
102 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
of sensations, which come to it from our internal and our
external senses. These produce in the mind representa
tions, which he calls intuitions. The mind combines the
various intuitions which come to it from an object, sayfrom an apple, forming thus by its spontaneity the idea
of an apple.
It locates all its intuitions in time and space. Kantmaintains that this location proceeds from the mind
alone; time and space are a priori forms which we im
pose upon nature and do not derive from nature. Hewrites: "It sounds strange at first, but it is none the less
certain, that the mind does not derive its own primitive
cognitions from nature, but imposes them upon nature."
Kant thought that this discovery of time and space as
a priori forms of thought was the death knell, the Mane,
Thekel, Phares, of dogmatism, while it is one of his own
many dogmas. His admirer Weber exclaims: "Such is
the immortal discovery of Kant, and one of the capital
doctrines of Critical philosophy."
That capital doctrine is a capital error. And yet it is
Kant s main proof to show that we do not know things as
they are in themselves, the noumena, but only as they ap
pear to us, the phenomena. Now, no man can seriously
convince himself that time and space do not belong to
things themselves but only to our view of them . Why have
we locomotives if things are not distant from one another
but only in our mind ? But such distance is space ;for real
space is the relation between existing bodies. Our mind
may imagine space to be limitless, and such limitless spacehas no real being out of the mind, but real space has. Asto time, it is the measure of succession in things that
change; and certainly things change successively.
From Kant to Our Own Time. 103
81. As Kant makes the mind impose a priori forms
on our sensations, so he makes it impose a priori forms
on our judgments. According to him we judge one
thing to be a cause and another an effect, not because
they are so, but because it is our nature to judge them
BO. Thus, too, we judge one thing to be possible and an
other impossible, one thing necessary and another con
tingent, one a substance and another an accident, though
they may not be such in themselves. These modes of
judgments he calls categories, of which he assigns twelve,
thus giving a new meaning to the ancient term category.
But we cannot here explain the entire structure of his
complicated edifice.
We must, however, notice another of his capital er
rors, that regarding his synthetic judgments a priori. Ajudgment is analytic when the meaning of the subject
and the predicate shows by the mere analysis of both
that they agree or disagree with one another; as: "the
infinitely perfect being is good," for goodness is a per
fection. The judgment is synthetic when the subject
and predicate are brought together in some other way.This other way can only be experience or reasoning on
what has been observed or experienced, and therefore
the judgment is said to be a posteriori, posterior to ex
perience; but Kant speaks of judgments which are
neither analytical nor a posteriori. These come then
from the mind itself, says Kant, not because the mind
sees the agreement of the subject and predicate, but sim
ply because it is the nature of the mind to impose its
view upon the matter. For instance,"
everything must
have a reason for being,"
" two things equal to a third are
equal to each other," etc.
104 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
Now all these are a priori judgments, necessarily and
objectively true, and seen by the mind to be true on the
careful consideration of the full meaning of the subjectsand the predicates; all a priori judgments are analytic.
When Kant refuses to admit the truth of such judgmentsin the objective reality, he destroys the science of mathematics and every other science, philosophy included.
For all the sciences rest on the value of logical reasoning;and there is no value in reasoning if the principle is
doubted which underlies the syllogism, namely: two
things equal to a third are equal to each other. Kant s
philosophy is suicidal.
To prove that pure reasoning is incapable of giving us
true knowledge, Kant pretends to point out four an
tinomies, that is, four sets of contradictory judgmentswhich are true while contradictory. These judgmentsare: 1. The antinomy of quantity : the world is limited
in space and time, and yet it is unlimited in space and
time; he attempts to prove both. 2. The antinomy of
quality : matter is infinitely divisible and not infinitely
divisible. 3. The antinomy of relation : there is liberty of
choice and there is no liberty of choice. 4. The antinomyof modality : there must be a necessary being, and there
need be no necessary being. These are four notorious
quibbles ;but Kant strives to make them appear respect
able, and by them to destroy all objective certainty.
With similar quibbles he attacks the existence of God,that of the soul, etc.
82. But Kant s Criticism of the Practical Reason tries
to build up again what his other Criticism had pulleddown. In this second work he discusses the question"What must I do?" and he answers: "I must act ac-
From Kant to Our Own Time. "i ^iOS&b#f
cording to a maxim which would admit of being regardedas a general law for all acting beings." He feels within
him an imperative dictate which says, "I ought to do
so or so." This is a categorical imperative, absolute, not
conditional. The will of man imposes this rule on it
self; and therefore our morality is autonomous, self-
imposed. It is an independent morality, not even de
pendent on God. Kant fails to see that it is not our
will that imposes this rule on itself;it is our understand
ing that makes known to us the duty of keeping the right
order of things in our conduct. The rule of our reason
comes from the Author of our being; it is the law of God.
From the fact that we must obey a law Kant draws
three important conclusions: 1, That we are free agents;
for only free agents are subject to a moral law. 2, That
our soul is immortal; for compliance with duty improves
us, and we are always capable of more and more im
provement, so that we cannot reach our term in this
life. Besides, sanctity is not attainable in this world;
therefore there must be a future world. 3, Duty well
performed deserves happiness; now, we cannot attain
happiness in the next world without a good God; there
fore there is a good God.
A third portion of Kant s critical study is the "Critique
of the Judgment." It considers things as concordant
among themselves or as fit for an end intended. Thingsconcordant regard the esthetic judgment; they are the
beautiful and the sublime. The beautiful pleases us be
cause we feel we can unify the multiform; the sublime
awes us because we feel we cannot do so. Things fit for
a purpose regard the ideological judgment.
Kant had undertaken to refute Hume s phenomenal-
106 Philosophy of the Christian Era.P <
Vt. t-{^/> -t t- P ^
i ? ,, ff>J*t**~ ^ * t ^ \ \*vv <.^
<
l
ism; but he failed to do so. He left philosophy in a
worse condition than he had found it;and he had opened
up regions of novel speculations and doubts, which have
employed the wits of numerous followers till the present
day.83. Kant had accepted the existence of the material
world, and explained how the human mind fashions it to
suit our mental faculties; his system contained a~ dual
ism, mind and matter. John Gottlieb Fichte (1762 to
1814) attempted to put unity into Kantism, by makingall our knowledge merely subjective, denying the ob?
jective reality of sensations. The mind, the Ego, alone
exists;it thinks out the universe. Then, reflecting on i$
thought, it distinguishes between itself and its mentaji
creations, self and not-self, subject and object; it calls-
the subjective thought, the objective it calls sensation.
Thus the duality of spirit and matter is removed;for the
matter is nothing else than the thought of the spirit,
which posits itself and all else.
As Kant had added a practical portion to his specula
tions, and thus tried to undo some of the harm which
his"
Critique of Pure Reason " had caused, so likewise
Fichte added a Practical System, which was intended to
effect the same benign purpose. But the two can
scarcely be considered as concordant parts of a whole
theory. In later life especially he emphasized the practical portion, particularly in an "Address to the GermanNation." His practical maxim is: "Act according to thy
conscience"; this precept regulates man s interior. Theother maxim regulates his exterior conduct: "So limit
thy freedom that others may be free along with thee." Whenthis last principle is violated, then the State must inter-
From Kant to Our Own Time. 107
fere. Besides, man must be religious; and religion adds
to morality peace and life and blessed love.
84. Frederick William Joseph Schelling (1775 to 1854)was first a disciple of Fichte, but gradually changed his
views and taught successively five different systems. Amain feature of his shifting structure is the absolute iden
tity of the subject knowing and the object known. Hedoes not admit an Ego and a non-Ego, but only a trans
cendental unity of being and knowledge, of matter and
spirit. For he argues thus: truth requires conformitybetween the subject knowing and the object known;but there can be no conformity without identity. This
absolute identity, or the Absolute s Indifference to be one
thing or another, is the center of all science, as well as of
all existence; and the immediate perception, or pure intu
ition, of reason is the only organ or means by which mancan come to the fountain of all truth.
The Absolute Identity itself is God; all things are onlyvarious modes of the existence of God. Next Schelling
considers various things, matter and spirit, good and
evil, life and non-life, etc., and sets forth how everythingis a mode of the Absolute Indifference; the world is an
epic poem without beginning and without end. His
system is the poetry of an enthusiastic imagination ever
speculating on new possibilities; but it is poetry, not
philosophy. The theory has charmed many by its ap
parent combination of unity and variety; but it is a
structure without foundation to its theory, and in prac
tice destructive of morality. For it takes away all law
and denies all liberty, without which two elements there
can be no morality.
85. George William Frederick Hegel (1770 to 1831)
108 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
has had a large following, but his disciples interpret him
very diversely. For his great obscurity allows everyone to put his own meaning into his system. He main
tained that pure conception in itself, and pure conception
alone, is true being; also that every thing rational is real,
and that every thing real is rational He also makes
the beautiful, and God Himself, only mental phenomena.
With all this he is so obscure that many consider him
as a firm prop of Church and State, and his doctrines as
a perfect system of rational science. Some Hegelians as
sert the personality of God; others deny it, except in as
far as God becomes self-conscious in human reason.
This latter view is real pantheism, and, if not taught byHegel, it follows at least from his principles.
But Hegel s pantheism is unlike Spinoza s; for the lat-
/* ter makes the Absolute an infinite substance, while He
gel s makes it an infinite activity, which becomes suc
cessively nature and spirit, so that nature and spirit are
mere manifestations of the Absolute. Hegel s is a phi
losophy of development, of which it notes three stages,
namely, the being in-itself, out-of-self, and for-itself; that
is, being, or thought, realizes itself by going out from
itself and returning to itself.
To put the right value on Hegel s system, we must con
sider what he undertakes to explain. Kant had failed
to put unity into his theory; Fichte gave it unity bymerging the object, the thing-in-itself ,
in the activity of
the subject, the Ego; Schelling merged subject and ob
ject in the indifference of the Absolute; Hegel substi
tuted for the Absolute of indifference an Absolute of im
manent activity. Hegel s Absolute is a process which
From Kant to Our Own Time 09,
/Zy4,-f
does not give forth matter and spirit, but becomes matter and spirit.
But we must bear in mind that in this whole theorythe very purpose of philosophy is lost sight of. For the
purpose of philosophy is the pursuit of truth, not of fic
tion; the conformity of our mind to the objects of knowl
edge: the world, the soul, the First Cause of all things
not the weaving of subjective theories, however ingeni
ous and complete they may be, and how perfect in their
unity and variety.
86. John Frederick Herbart (1776 to 1841) opposedthe whole Hegelian system. He rightly maintained that
the problem set for philosophy is not to construct a uni
verse, but to accept the universe as it exists; and, to ex
plain it properly. He called his system &ealism,^givinga novel meaning to this term; for the oloTSBKSmg was a ., y /counter -distinction to Nominalism and Conceptualism.-,^. *
(n. 56) as regarding universals; but Herbart s Realism
is opposed to Fichte s Idealism (n. 83), which denied the
reality of the world of sense. Yet in the world of sense
Herbart admits only the phenomenal. For he reasons
thus: being admits of neither limitation nor negation-;
but all things in nature are limited; therefore they are
not real, but merely phenomenal. And again: a thing
cannot be one and yet many; but all things around us
are one and many for instance, a man is extension,
movement, substance and accidents, etc. therefore theyare not real things.
Herbart is chiefly known in the United States on ac
count of the application he made of philosophy to edu
cation. He was led to this by his acquaintance with
Pestalozzi, the founder of a modern school of Pedagogy.
110 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
This makes it all the more regretable that he has fallen
into many grievous errors; for false principles cannot be
safe guides in the training of the child, especially when
they concern the very nature of those faculties which
are to be trained. Now Herbart does not even admit
free-will in the child; for he teaches that the human will
is nothing but thought, will is only the supremacy of the
strongest idea.
87. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 to 1860) attempts to
defend and improve Kantism, seeking light for this pur
pose in Platonism and Buddhism. He admits in our
knowledge a subject and an object, yet so that there is
no object without a subject which posits it. But it is not
the intellect but the will of the subject which posits it;
the will is the noumenal cause of the phenomenon.Therefore his principal work is entitled "The World as
Will and Representation."
By the will he means the natural impulse to live; it is
common to vegetable, animal and human beings. It is
a combative impulse tending to struggle for existence;
and even in man it is not spiritual but merely brain
action.
The subject is prompted to act by experiencing pain,
pleasure being only a cessation of pain ; positive pleasureis an illusion. He writes: "The simple truth is that we
ought to be miserable, and so we are. The chief source
of the serious evils which affect man is man himself:
homo homini lupus. Whoever keeps this fact clearly in
view beholds the world as a hell which surpasses that of
Dante in this respect that one man must be the devil of
another. . . . Life is a path of red-hot coals with a few
cool places here and there."
From Kant to Our Own Time. Ill
We must individually strive to escape from pain:
(a) By art, chiefly music, which lulls our conscious life,
(fe) By sympathy, which makes the sufferings of others
our own, and thus substitutes the will-to-let-live for the
will-to-live, (c) By negation of the will-to-live, whether
by Christian asceticism or pagan Buddhism, the Nirvana
of the philosopher. His theory, therefore, is a mixture
of pantheism and pessimism.
ARTICLE II. SCOTTISH PHILOSOPHY.
88. After Hume had carried the false principles of
Descartes to their logical consequences, and left noth
ing but phenomenalism and scepticism to his followers
in England and Scotland (n. 79, 3), a salutary reaction
against his influence arose in his own country under the
guidance of Carmichael and Hutcheson, but especially of
Reid.
1. Thomas Reid (1710-1796), in his "Essays on the
Powers of the Human Mind," proposed a system which
he called the Philosophy of Common Sense; it has been
distinctively designated as "the Scottish Philosophy."
Discarding theories and hypotheses, he insists on our
thorough conviction that we perceive bodies directly, as
the common sense of all men declares. He accepts this
belief as a foundation of certainty that must not be dis
cussed, because it is an instinct of human nature. Yet
an instinct not critically examined is only a blind im
pulse, and cannot be the foundation of rational knowl
edge. While thus wanting in the last analysis, his sys
tem provides for men a safe rule of action, and secures
them from wandering far astray. It is no deep philoso
phy, nor is its foundation solid; but it is practically safe.
112 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
2. Dugald Stuart (1753-1828), a disciple of Reid, ex
pounded his master s teachings in works of elegant taste
and varied learning, thus popularizing the study of phi
losophy and extending the influence of Reid s system.
Besides, he greatly improved on the theory by referring
the judgment of right and wrong to reason and not to a
moral sense, as Reid had done.
3. Sir William Hamilton (1788-1856) is far from being
equally sound. He supposed that the task of philosophywas to consider the conditions of knowledge. This is
done by the study of the mind, by psychology, which he
called metaphysics. The mind knows only phenomena,he teaches, and he adds: "Our whole knowledge of mind
and matter is thus only relative; of existence, absolute
and in itself, we know nothing." By his erudition and
scholarship Hamilton secured a large following. But
his relativity of knowledge wras both obscure and untrue;
it prepared the way for agnosticism.
4. Henry Longueville Mansel (1820-1871) concluded
from the relativity of natural knowledge the necessity of
revelation, and therefore of faith which accepts revela
tion.
ARTICLE III. FRENCH PHILOSOPHY.
89. We have seen (n. 78) that Condillac, Helvetius,
Voltaire, etc., had ruined all philosophy in France; and
the Reign of Terror which soon followed had destroyedall pretense of public virtue. This situation led the royalist De Bonald (1754-1840) into novel speculations to
save morality and religion. He maintained that humanreason is powerless to attain to truth, that man could
not have acquired any ideas but through language;
From Kant to Our Own Time. 113
therefore that all our knowledge, both of words and of
things, must have come to our race by revelation of the
Creator. Together with language God must have given
us the principal truths of religion, and also the principles
of the metaphysical, moral and political order. Thus he
rests all certainty, not on evidence, but on revelation.
About the same time, and partly for the same reasons,
the Abbe* De Lamennais (1782-1854), after zealously
defending the Church for a dozen years with distinguished
ability, and at first with conspicuous success, undertook
in 1830 to start the newspaper I Avenir for the purposeof advocating the union of the Church with popular lib
erty, together with the abolition of royalty, of the no
bility and of the Concordat. When these novel and rev
olutionary doctrines were condemned at Rome, he
refused to submit, and soon began an open warfare
against the Church.
Before his apostasy he had written his"
Essay on In
difference," in which he taught the system of Tradition
alism. The worship of Reason, which, in the person
of a degraded woman, had been enthroned on the altar
of the cathedral of Paris, had discredited human reason
in the eyes of the most religious people. Hence De Lamennais was led to maintain that the light of human
knowledge cannot have come to man by reason but only
by revelation; tradition has handed that knowledgedown to us, embodied in the collective thought, or uni
versal consent of mankind.
In his later work, "A Sketch of a Philosophy," he adds
elements of mysticism, rationalism and pantheism. The
Traditionalism which he had so vigorously advocated,
was defended by many well-meaning men as a reaction
114 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
against rationalism; but, instead of benefiting the faith,
as they had hoped it would do, it rather led to scepticism.
90. Meanwhile Victor Cousin (1792-1867), by his bril
liant lectures in Paris and his numerous and scholarly
writings, attracted the favorable attention of Europe to
his views on the history of philosophy, and to his own
peculiar system of Eclecticism. He divided all systemsof philosophy into four classes, namely: sensism, ideal
ism, scepticism and mysticism. It is the part of common sense, he claimed, to gather the elements of truth
scattered through those various speculations. In his
effort to do so, he followed the inductive process, which
he applied to the facts of consciousness.
He thus finds within himself first the will power, which
he considers as the characteristic of personality, and sec
ondly, facts of sensation and acts of reason. In our will
we perceive causality, a fact which many theorizers have
failed to recognize; our reason reveals the finite, the in
finite and the relations between them. Thus psychol
ogy enables us to reason from contingent things to the
Absolute Cause, the Absolute Substance, etc., in fact, to
all the great truths of life. Cousin had begun with the
spirit of a rationalist; gradually he elaborated his own
system of Spiritualism, as he wished his theory to be
called. He went further, and suggested at least that his
reasoning led up to the porch of Divine revelation.
91. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) is the author of what
is called Positivism. This system teaches that mancannot know anything but positive facts which fall under
the senses, together with the relations which the mind
can trace between these facts. Every sensible man ac
cepts such facts as real; why, then, are Comtists alone
From Kant to Our Own Time. 115
called Positivists? Because of their denial that we can
know anything else. They should, therefore, properly be
called"
Negativists." Comte of course denies, in keep
ing with his main teachings, that we can know anythingabout God, the soul, a future life, etc. He also maintains that our knowledge is only relative, because it is
derived from the relations between things.
In early times, he says, men considered all events as
coming from the voluntary action of the gods it wasthe theological age; in the metaphysical age men traced
events to occult and abstract forces; now, in the positive
age, we merely state facts. Laws or theories are mere
abstractions, not causes. He also attempted to makePositivism into a religion, which would be the direct
worship of "Humanity."
Comte has had a large following in English-speaking
countries, rather than in France. He did not deal in
metaphysical speculations, but in the physical and social
sciences. In fact, his views would make metaphysics
impossible; for the latter science is incompatible with
Positivism, which excludes the knowledge of whatever
is beyond sensation.
Henry Count of St. Simon (1760-1835) did not elabo
rate a system, but he sowed the seed of social changeswhich his disciples developed into the system of Indus
trialism ; and with this his name has become historically
connected. With this plan is combined the theory of
perpetual progress, or Social Evolution, which strives to
establish on earth an era of temporal happiness for all,
irrespective of religion and the future life.
116 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
ARTICLE IV. ENGLISH PHILOSOPHY.
92. A large number of English writers have during the
last two centuries proposed and propagated various false
theories.
1. Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) was an eminent chem
ist, who, like many other scientists, was incapable of anywider views than those belonging to his specialty. Hemade thought a mere function of the brain, thus pro
moting rank materialism.
2. Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) explained ideas as
being mere motions, contractions and other modifica
tions of those nerves which are connected with the organsof sense. All further mental actions are referred to the
association of such ideas.
3. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) made the purpose of
morality to consist in the greatest happiness to the great
est number; we must seek pleasure, yet not as egoists
only, but also as altruists.
4. James Mill (1773-1836) wrote "The Analysis of
the Phenomena of the Human Mind "
to prove that our
ideas are only the remnants of our sensations, and our
beliefs are the inseparable associations of our ideas with
one another. Morality is the utility of actions to in
crease happiness.
5. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) a son of the preced
ing, composed a "
System of Logic," which has been ex
tensively taught in English and American colleges; but
it is far from being a safe guide. He rejects all a priori
knowledge, and makes experience the sole source of cer
tainty. It follows from his principles that even a circle
may not, for all we know, be round in other planets, for
From Kant to Our Own Time. 117
we have not been there to see circles; nor may a triangle
there have three sides; axioms are only generalizations
of our experiences; causation is but invariable sequence;our aim should ever be to procure the greatest happinessfor all sentient beings. He has, however, benefited Logic by formulating good rules for experimental investi
gations.
93. The philosophy of Evolution has held the field of
speculation for the last eighty years, not in England
only, but in all civilized lands. Evolution, in its widest
meaning, may be defined as the process of formation of
more complex from simpler forms of beings, the passageof the homogeneous into the heterogeneous. In a nar
rower meaning, it signifies the formation of more perfect
from less perfect species of organisms. In this latter
signification Evolution had been spoken of, as we have
seen (n. 15), by so early a philosopher as Anaximander;
Aristotle, St. Augustine, Leibnitz and others had sus
pected its action in the world.
We cannot prove to a demonstration that it has ever
taken place; but very many modern scientists scarcely
allow its former existence to be questioned. They con
sider the material world to have been evolved into its
present state from a mere nebula of world stuff. Relig
ion has no quarrel with Evolution as such, but only with
infidel Evolution. Ecclesiastes says:"
I have seen the
trouble which God hath given to the sons of men to
be exercised in it. He hath made all things good in
their time, and hath delivered the world to their con
sideration, so that man cannot find out the work which
God hath made from the beginning to the end"
(III, 10, 11).
118 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
94. The principal philosophers who have written on
Evolution are the following:
1. Charles Darwin (1809-1883) conceived an ingenious explanation of supposed processes by which a few
simple and primitive organisms may have been grad
ually, through countless ages, evolved into all the species
of plants and animals that now exist or ever have existed
on earth. He ascribes such changes to natural tend
encies in organisms to vary their progeny, and to trans
mit such variations by heredity from generation to generation. In the struggle for existence that \vould often
occur, he traced the natural survival of the fittest, and in
vented laws of natural and sexual selection, which, he
thought, would tend to produce ever more perfect or
ganisms, ultimately man himself.
He does not attempt to show how the first plants and
animals originated; in the series of successive developments he admits there are numerous gaps which he can
not bridge over; and in his" Descent of Man" he utterly
fails to prove that the human soul was evolved from
matter, a change which is metaphysically impossible.
In all his theory he makes the mistake of supposing that
the marvelous order conspicuous in the universe can
have resulted from blind forces, not especially providedfor the purpose by the wise Creator, and that whatever
can be imagined to have happened has actually occurred.
2. Alfred Russel Wallace (born 1823) proposed thesame
theory as Darwin and at the same time as he; but he was
less rash in his speculations, not including man in the
series of evolutions, and admitting the directing wisdom
of the Creator. His greater prudence made him less of
a favorite with the many writers and readers who wel-
From Kant to Our Own Time. 119
corned Darwinism as a plausible way out of the necessity
of admitting a wise Creator.
3. John Tyndall (1829-1893), a distinguished phys
icist, in his notorious address at Belfast in 1874 as Pres
ident of the British Association, shocked the public ear
of England by his materialistic utterance that all the
elements which made up a genius like Newton were con
tained in the nebula from which our planetary systemwas eventually evolved.
All the evolutionists so far mentioned were skilful
scientists in some department or other, in which theyrendered valuable services to their fellow-men. But
they could not leave metaphysics and religion alone,
which, however, lay beyond the grasp of most of them.
They applied to what is beyond the physical such processes of investigation as suited their physical specialties.
Such was especially the case with the following writer.
4. Thomas H. Huxley (1835-1895) made himself the
principal spokesman of the infidel party of evolutionists.
Deprecating the odium attached to the name materialist,
and yet unwilling to be classed with spiritualists, he
assumed the title of Agnostic, pretending that no mancan answer the great questions of life. He played a
double part: when addressing the learned he spoke of
Darwinism as a theory only; but to the laboring classes,
in his "Origin of Species," "Man s Place in Nature" and
"Lay Sermons," he taught the most materialistic fea
tures of Darwinism, and proclaimed explicitly that no
other system of Evolution is possible. He spent a long,
energetic and learned life in purposely teaching infidelity.
5. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) had given definite
form to the doctrine of Evolution as early as A.D. 1855,
120 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
four years before Darwin published his "Origin of
Species." He was the philosopher of Evolution; he has
even been called by his admirers the Aristotle of moderntimes. He made Evolution to apply, not merely to life
and its forms on earth, but to the whole system of the
universe. Relegating the beginning of things to the
unknowable, he labored to show that all the conditions
of the planetary system are due to alternations of evo
lutions and dissolutions. In his"
Synthetic Philosophy"
he undertook to embrace in one consistent exposition
the workings of Evolution in biology, psychology, morality and sociology. As to the validity of our knowledgeof bodies, we can only grasp
"
the unknown correlations
of our feelings and the relations among our feelings."
Ethical truths and sentiments are thus accounted for:
"the experiences of utility, organized and consolidated
through all past generations of the human race have
been producing corresponding nervous modifications,
which, by continued transmission and accumulation
have become in us certain faculties of moral intuitions
certain emotions corresponding to right and wrong con
duct which have no apparent basis in the individual ex
periences of utility."
He did not live to complete his great work on "Syn
thetic Philosophy"; but he lived long enough to see and
acknowledge its unsatisfactory nature, and some of his
more important errors. Thus in his "Reflections," published a short time before his death, he admits that a
purposeless universe seems worthless, that the conscious
ness evolved in every child suggests an omnipresent
consciousness, that we must speculate as to the wherefore
of the process out of which the worlds and their lives
From Kant to Our Own Time. 121
have come; whereas in his earlier work on "First Prin
ciples" he had considered religion as a mere sentiment.
6. St. George Mivart (1827-1900) also wrote in defense
of Evolution, refuting in his "Genesis of Species" the
atheistic interpretation of this process, and in his learned
work "Truth" explaining the Scholastic philosophy of
knowledge, and showing it to be in accord with the
teachings of physical science. The peculiar process of
Evolution which he suggests may or may not be the true
one; but he certainly treats it with deep knowledge of
sound principles.
John Henry Newman (1801-1890) first, while yet
an Anglican, the principal leader of the Oxford move
ment, which led large numbers of learned clergymen and
laymen with him into the Catholic Church, and later in
life honored with the dignity of Cardinal, was one of the
most philosophic writers of the nineteenth century.
Though most of his discourses and writings dealt directly
with religious subjects, he generally viewed the matters
treated from the standpoint of reason as well as from
that of revelation. He examined all doctrines and ar
guments with a peculiarly keen analytic mind, tracing
conclusions to their first principles, whether these were
of the natural or of the supernatural order. But his
most obvious title to rank among philosophers is his
"Grammar of Assent," in which he formally discusses
the first principles of certainty as they affect the most
important convictions of men.
Some of his views in that work are presented in a manner as original as it is convincing to the student. For
instance, he insists much on the consideration that " our
apprehension of a proposition varies in strength, and
122 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
it is stronger when it is concerned with a proposition
expressive to us of things than when concerned with a
proposition expressive of notions"
;because " what is
concrete exerts a force and makes an impression on the
mind which nothing abstract can rival" (p. 36). Hevalued more, in practical matters, including those of
religion, the certainty arising from a number of con
verging probabilities than from a clear-cut syllogism.
In proving the existence of God he laid special stress
on the testimony which conscience bears to the obliga
tory nature of the natural law. As the material universe
leads the human intellect to seek and find a First Cause
which is adequate to account for the facts, so the moral
universe, which exists in the consciences of men, points
to something above and beyond itself which the intellect
pronounces to be the One Personal God.
This perfectly correct argument was misinterpreted bythe Modernists, who wished to make Newman appearas an advocate of their doctrine of immanence. But the
charge has been triumphantly refuted by the Most Rev.
Bishop O Dwyer of Limerick in his pamphlet entitled" Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici
Gregis." Perhaps no writer during the nineteenth cen
tury exerted a stronger influence in hehalf of truth in
England than Cardinal Newman.
ARTICLE V. PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA.
95. From colonial times speculations on philosophic
matters have attracted the attention of many learned
men in this country, though few Americans have built up
systems of thought that have commanded general at-
From Kant to Our Own Time. 123
tention. Since the people here were mostly religiously
minded before the present system of public schools had
become prevalent, philosophy among them often took
the form of efforts to support their Church doctrines byreason; while on the other hand the spirit of liberty, so
dominant in their political life, impelled not a few of
their writers to drive false principles to their logical con
sequences. Several of the American philosophers merit
special mention.
1. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) is one of the most
conspicuous among them. He attempted to conciliate
the Calvinistic theology with the principles of reason.
In his "Treatise on the Will" he endeavored to provethat the Calvinistic notions of God s moral governmentare not contrary to the common sense of mankind. Toeffect this purpose he maintains that virtue does not con
sist in the will s free compliance with duty, in fact that
the liberty of self-determination is an impossibility, since
it would exclude God s foreknowledge of our free acts.
He teaches that sin is the total inability of man to ob
serve the Divine law. Edwards had undertaken an im
possible task, but he labored at it with much ingenuity
and devotedness.
2. Jonathan Edwards Junior (1745-1801), son of the
preceding, was president of Union College. He adoptedmost of his father s teachings; and, besides, he elaborated
what is called "The New England Theory of the Atone
ment," which has been widely adopted in this land.
3. Samuel Johnson, D.D. (1696-1790) published
through Benjamin Franklin in 1752 his Elementa Phil-
osophica a clear and able treatise, teaching mainly the
doctrine of Malebranche (n. 74).
124 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
4. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), the renowned
physicist and statesman, by his "Reflections of Poor
Richard" gained deserved credit for great practical wis
dom. He was most influential in exciting and directing
mental activity among his fellow-citizens.
In his day the political relations of America with
the freethinkers of France caused their writings to be
eagerly read on this side of the Atlantic, and gained them
many admirers. Hume also was then at the height of
his fame, and Locke s "Essay on the Human Under
standing" was the favorite text-book in American col
leges. Thus a powerful impulse was given to philosophic
speculations; and these were often of an injurious kind.
But the Scottish school had also wide vogue in the
United States, especially after the sad fruits of infidel
teachings had begun to be realized.
5. Thomas Upham (1799-1867), professor in Bowdoin
College, energetically opposed the spread of infidel no
tions by his able text-books inculcating the teachings of
Dugald Stewart (n. 88), modified by his own reasonings.
6. Orestes A. Brownson (1803-1876), one of the deepest thinkers and ablest writers of the nineteenth century,
published during twenty-five years Brownson s Quarterly
Review, almost every article of which was from his own
pen. An earnest convert to the Church, he has left a
rich treasury of information for Catholic readers, the
use of which has been made readily available by a ju
dicious new edition in twenty volumes, supplementedwith a detailed topical index by his son Col. Henry F.
Brownson. This last named author gives the following
analysis of his father s philosophy:
"Brownson always disclaimed having originated any
From Kant to Our Own Time. 125
system of philosophy, and acknowledged freely whatever
he borrowed from others; but he had worked out and
arrived at substantially the philosophy of his later writ
ings before he ever heard of Gioberti, from whom he
obtained the formula ens creat existentias, which Gioberti
expressed in the formula ens creat existens, to indicate the
ideal or intelligible object of thought. By the analysis
of thought he finds that it is composed of three separate
elements subject, object, and their relation, simultane
ously given. Analysis of the object shows that it is
likewise composed of three elements simultaneously
given the ideal, the empirical, and their relation. He
distinguishes the ideal intuition, in which the activity is
in the object presenting or offering itself, and empirical
intuition or cognition, in which the subject as well as the
object acts. Ideal intuition presents the object, reflec
tion takes it as represented sensibly; that is, in case of
the ideal, as represented in language. Identifying ideas
with the categories of the philosophers, he reduced them
to these three: Being, Existences, and their Relation.
The necessary is Being; the contingent, Existences; and
their Relation, the creative act of Being. Being is God,
personal because He has intelligence and will. From
Him as First Cause, proceed the physical laws; and as
Final Cause, the moral laws, commanding to worship
Him, naturally or supernaturally, in the way and manner He prescribes." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Art.
Brownson.)7. Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) is popularly consid
ered as a great philosopher, the founder of Transcendent
alism. He was indeed a versatile genius, an impressive
writer and lecturer, and remarkable for bold and novel
126 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
thoughts; he often sent forth, in prose and verse, such
flashes of genius as kindled other minds, some of which
gave a systematic form to his conceptions. But he was
no systematic thinker; for he says of himself: "I do not
know what argumentations are in reference to any ex
pression of thought. I delight in telling what I think;
but if you ask me how I dare say so, or why it is so, I amthe most helpless of mortal men."
He often affirmed the existence of a transcendental
faculty in man, an intuitive religion and perception of
God. The preacher of religion should be, he maintained,"A new-born bard of the Holy Ghost, and should cast
behind him all conformity (with any denomination) ,and
acquaint men at first hand with the Deity." He be
lieved in an Over-Soul as a light guiding men, the light
of intuitive perception; he took God to be the soul of the
world, and the soul of man one with such a God.
But originality and boldness of thought and expression
do not make a philosopher; systematic thought is es
sential for all philosophy, and conformity of the thoughtto the objective truth for sound philosophy. In both
these qualities Emerson s writings are very deficient.
If he is mentioned here among philosophers, it is because
of the opportunity thus afforded of exposing a popularand pernicious error regarding his reputation.
Emerson is also exalted by some as a model of English
style; but his style is labored and unnatural, more re
markable for conceit than for ease and classic grace.
8. In the middle of the nineteenth century Rev. C. S.
Henry published his "Moral and Philosophical Essays,"
and one of the best works on the"
History of Philosophy"
in English.
From Kant to Our Own Time. 127
9. Among the soundest thinkers during the latter half
of the nineteenth century in this country was the Scotch
man James McCosh, president of Princeton College, NewJersey, the avowed and able critic of Hamilton and Kant,on the one hand, and of Mill and Herbert Spencer, on
the other. He also published an effective" Defense of
Fundamental Truths," and some thoughtful volumes
on "
Realism," that is, on the reality of our knowledge.Dr. Friedrich Ueberweg, in his "History of Philos
ophy," Vol. II, gives a brief account of some sixty more
philosophical writers in America during the nineteenth
century. But none of them have founded a distinct
school, or have had a numerous following. Their sys
tems were the speculations of individuals, or repetitions
of European theories. Those which were original re
sembled dissolving views, none of which held the atten
tion of the learned long enough to make a lasting im
pression.
ARTICLE VI. ITALIAN AND SPANISH PHILOSOPHY.
96. The principal Italian philosophers during the last
two centuries:
1. Roger Boscovich, S. J. (1711-1787), professor at
the Roman College, was the founder of the system of
Dynamism. This system makes matter consist of sim
ple ultimate elements, or monads, endowed with two
distinct powers: one of these keeps the monads at a dis
tance from one another, thus giving extension to bodies;
the other attracts them towards one another, thus giving
solidity to bodies. Leibnitz also had made the material
universe consist of ultimate monads (n. 79) ;but he had
gratuitously attributed to the monads such fanciful and
128 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
extravagant natures as deprived his theory of all plaus
ibility. Boscovich confined himself to a far more modest scheme; though he, too, was unable to demonstrate ita
objective reality, and failed to give satisfactory answers
to some strong objections against it.
2. Paschale Galuppi (1770-1846), the chief represen
tative in Italy of the Critical school, attempted to vindi
cate the validity of our intellectual knowledge against
the sensism of Locke and Condillac, the subjective cate
gories of Kant, and Reid s arbitrary admission of common sense judgments. He also proved that Kant s synthetic judgments a priori are really analytical judgments,in which the attribute is contained in the subject. General ideas come from comparison and abstraction. But
with all this he rested his system too much on a subjec
tive foundation, which failed to support the objective
truth of our knowledge. In his practical philosophy he
is generally in accord with the Scholastics.
3. Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), a priest of
most saintly life, at one time minister of instruction in
the cabinet of Pius IX, the founder also of the learned
and pious "Institute of Charity," originated the Italian
school of Idealism. He reduces the problem of our
knowledge to an intellectual perception of reality. The
reality perceived by every mind is simple, one, universal
and necessary, it is the very intelligence of God, perma
nently communicated to the human mind under the
form of pure ideality. All transcendental ideas, logical
principles, substance, causality, etc., are potentially con
tained in it, and become distinct through the process of
reflection. Our universal ideas are but subjective de
terminations of the infinite ideality.
From Kant to Our Own Time. 129
Rosmini also teaches that chemical atoms possess a
principle of life, that there is a universal soul in nature,
which, however, is individualized in the countless beings
of the universe. Spontaneous generation is a natural
consequence. His practical philosophy led him to ad
vocate radical measures with regard to Church and
State, in particular concerning education. When some
of his writings were in consequence placed on the Index
Expurgatorius, his docility on the occasion proved that
his personal virtue far exceeded the wisdom of his philo
sophic speculations.
4. Vincenzo Gioberti (1801-1853), also a priest of pe
culiar views on theoretic and practical questions, traced
out a special form of Ontologism as the only road to cer
tain knowledge. Our mind, he maintained, has an im
mediate intuition of "God creating the world," Ens
creans existens, but it requires reflection to realize the
truth. This reflection is not merely the analysis of our
mental acts, but also the consideration of the object
intuited. The Ens, or Being, gives us ontology and the
ology; the copula creating originates the science of time
and space mathematics and also the sciences of the true,
the good and the beautiful logic, ethics and esthetics;
while the predicate existens originates the knowledge of
spirit and matter psychology, cosmology and the physical
sciences. Since the object Ens creans existens reveals itself
to our mind, our knowledge of it is necessarily well founded
and certain. The whole system is but a castle in the air.
5. Jaime L. Balmes (1810-1848) a Spanish priest, a
very prodigy of talent and industry, fulfilled in a brief
space a career of uncommon usefulness in the field of
philosophic thought. His work entitled "Protestant-
Philosophy of the Christian Era.
ism and Catholicity Compared in Their Effects on the
Civilization of Europe" is a profound philosophy of the
history of modern times; it is replete with sound thoughtand valuable erudition. His " Fundamental Philoso
phy"
is an able exposition of the doctrine of St. Thomas,cast in a new mold to suit the intellectual condition of
his own time. His " Elements of Philosophy" which
soon became a favorite text-book in the schools of Spain,
showed how his lofty genius deemed it a worthy task to
guide the mind of youth. All these works, and also his
"Criterion" and "The Art of Thinking," exist in Englishtranslations.
Before composing them he had thoroughly studied,
not only the Scholastics, but also the leading modern
philosophers; for he loved to discover and assimilate the
scattered crumbs of wholesome thought found in this
vast literature of varied speculations. He was thus led
to admit a few opinions which cannot stand the test of
thorough criticism. In particular the Catholic Encyclopedia remarks that
" he perhaps accords too much to
an intellectual instinct, a theory of the Scottish school
(n. 88), and too little to objective evidence in the per
ception of truth. In psychology he rejects the intellec-
tus agens (the abstractive intellect) and the species in-
telligibilis (intermediary representations), and he holds
the principle of life in brutes to be naturally imperishable. These, however, are but accidental and relatively
unimportant divergencies from the permanent body of
traditional philosophy." (Art. Balmes.) His great merit
lies in having presented the Scholastic system of thoughtin a new form and made it acceptable to the exactingintellect of his contemporaries.
From Kant to Our Own Time. 131
ARTICLE VII. THE NEO-SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY.
97. Neo- Scholasticism is Scholasticism rejuvenated,
restored to its original vigor, such as it possessed in the
thirteenth century, when the genius of St. Thomas Aquinashad wedded the Peripatetic, or Aristotelian, philosophyto the doctrines of the Church of God. From this happyunion of natural and supernatural truth had sprung a
progeny of learned men, not indeed gifted with infalli
bility, actually dissenting from one another on manyminor details, yet united on the great truths of life, whohave perpetuated the system of the great schools, or
universities, of the Middle Ages to the present day.
But Scholasticism had suffered from the human in
firmities of old age. In its youth it had readily assim
ilated the productions of the natural sciences, such as it
found them in the imperfect learning of those times.
Of late those fruits have multiplied exceedingly, but
little was done for some time to assimilate them into the
enfeebled organism. The old system had also been sur
charged with effete matter, which required to be purged
away. It has now been rejuvenated and restored to its
original vigor and clearness of sight. By taking into
itself the fruits so copiously supplied by the physical
sciences in modern times, Scholasticism is now growingto the full proportion of its manhood, and exhibiting to
the eyes of the learned world a vast, strong and well-
developed frame of theoretical and practical wisdom,
one in its structure, yet manifold in its activity, permanent as the truth itself, yet adapting its action from dayto day to the changing circumstances of its new sur
roundings.
<S2-
V.iJ
132 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
98. An obvious difference between medieval and modern Scholasticism lies in the purpose chiefly aimed at byeach. The medieval strove to bring into harmony the
speculations of reason with the doctrines of revelation,
so that knowledge should be reduced to unity in the hu
man mind, and that nothing should be considered true
in philosophy and yet false in theology, or the reverse.
This task has long since been performed in its main out
lines. But the purpose of Neo-Scholasticism is to adaptits principles to the state of modern science, as far as this
state is conformable to the objective truth, and to rectify
it where it is not correct.
For this purpose it is of the utmost importance that
true science be carefully distinguished from such novel
speculations as are not conformable to the truth of
things. Theories are not science; they come and go;
they must prove their conformity with truth before phi
losophy can be expected to square itself with them. But
when a truth formerly unknown has been established bycareful observation, philosophy must then consider it;
such is the task set for Neo-Scholasticism.
Nor is the task always an easy one. Scholasticism is
not throughout reason pure and simple; like the physical
sciences, it also contains some theories not strictly dem
onstrated, for instance the theory of matter and form,
which explains the constitution of bodies. Such theories
must not be stubbornly defended, but tested by the facts
of nature which modern sciences have made known to
us; and the theories must be modified and even aban
doned if proved to be at variance with facts.
99. But to do so wisely the Scholastic philosophermust know the facts of science; and, therefore, he must
From Kant to Our Own Time. 133
make himself familiar with the various sciences which
claim to make such discoveries. "The difficulty is in
deed a serious one," writes Cardinal Mercier, a foremost
leader of Neo-Scholasticism," nor is it in the power of any
individual to surmount it. Therefore it is that associa
tion must make up for the insufficiency of the isolated
individual; that men of analysis and of synthesis must
come together, and form, by their daily intercourse and
united action, an atmosphere suited to the harmonious
and equal development both of science and of philos
ophy." (Apud M. De Wulf, "Scholasticism Old and
New," translated by Coffey, page 209.)
But it is not enough for Neo-Scholasticism to assimi
late newly discovered truths; it must also refute modern
errors, such especially as are deceiving the present generation. Such in particular are the subjective theories
of Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, etc., the positivism
of Comte, the agnosticism of Huxley and Spencer,
etc.
100. The Neo-Scholastic movement had already madesome progress when, in the year 1878, Pope Leo XIII,
in his Encyclical Inscrutabili Dei Providentia commended its efforts, and soon after, in other weighty
documents, traced the lines on which its study should
be conducted. The principal source of progress in this
new field is the "Philosophical Institute" of Louvain,
Belgium, where the learned Professor, now Cardinal,
Mercier and several able cooperators have, since 1880,
cultivated biology, physics, chemistry, embryology, his
tology, physiology, psychophysiology and similar material sciences, in their connection with cosmology, psy
chology and other branches of metaphysics. (See Coffey s
134 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
translation of De Wulf, "Scholasticism Old and New,"
Appendix.)101. While the Neo-Scholastics at Louvain have been
chiefly busied in observing the progress of the physical
sciences to which the old teaching is to be adapted, other
Catholic thinkers in various lands have been working on
restatements and readjustments of the ancient meta
physics, discarding from it useless questions, emphasizingits most important teachings, and pointing out their
bearing upon the leading errors of modern thought. In
particular: 1. Joseph Kleutgen, S. J. (1811-1885), published the first complete course of Scholastic philosophyin the German language. He displayed such ability in
this matter that, when Leo XIII began his great work
of reconstructing the teaching of philosophy and theol
ogy, he made Father Kleutgen prefect of studies of the
Gregorian University in Rome. The two most important works of this author are
" Die Philosophic der Vor-
zeit" and "Die Theologie der Vorzeit," i.e., The Philoso
phy and the Theology of Former Ages. In the former
he gives a complete system of philosophy based on the
principles of the Scholastics. While not entering into
all the details commonly discussed in text-books of phi
losophy, and even avoiding the familiar mode of formal
theses and arguments, imitating on the contrary the
style and arrangement of modern writers, he discusses
the leading questions of criteriology, ontology, cosmol
ogy, psychology, and natural theology. All along he
strives chiefly to bring out the old doctrine in all its
beauty, and the solid arguments that support it in all
their strength.
In every tract he states the charges made against the
From Kant to Our Own Time. 135
Scholastic doctrine, refutes them, shows the untenable-
ness of the hypotheses proposed instead of the Scholastic
theories, and compares the advantages secured by hold
ing either the old or the new philosophic teachings.
In the "Theologie der Vorzeit" he compares the philo
sophical explanations of the doctrines of faith given byCatholic theologians who adhere to the so-called Modern
philosophy with the explanations preferred by the Scho
lastics. Hence this work, too, is philosophic in its char
acter; it discusses certain points not treated in the other.
2. In England the Jesuit Fathers have published a re
statement of the Scholastic philosophy with adaptationsto modern circumstances in their widely known "Stony-
hurst Philosophical Series." It comprises the following
volumes:
"Logic," by Richard F. Clarke, S. J., formerly pro
fessor in St. John s College, Oxford.
"First Principles of Knowledge," by John Rickaby,S. J.
"General Metaphysics," by the same author.
"Psychology," by Michael Maher, S. J., which in its
enlarged edition is the ablest work on the subject in
English. It is a masterpiece of Neo-Scholasticism.
"Natural Theology," by Bernard Boeder, S. J.
"Moral Philosophy" (Ethics and Natural Law), by
Joseph Rickaby, S. J.
"Political Economy," by Charles Stanton Devas, Esq.,
M.A. Examiner in Political Economy at the Royal
University, Ireland.
3. Besides the Stonyhurst Series, many able works
written in the best spirit of Neo-Scholasticism have been
published by various English writers. Thus the cele-
136 Philosophy of the Christian Era.
brated Summa Contra Gentiles of St. Thomas Aquinashas been translated into English, with learned notes and
other adaptations to the modern mind, by Joseph Rick-
aby, S. J., with the title "God and His Creatures."
"The Metaphysics of the Schools" in three volumes,is a most learned contribution to philosophy from the
pen of Thomas J. Harper, S. J.
St. George Mivart, the renowned scientist, has labored
with distinguished success to show the agreement be
tween Scholasticism and Modern Science in his books
entitled "Truth" and "The Origin of Human Reason."
John Gerard, S. J., attacks the false pretences of modern scientists in his "Evolutionary Philosophy," "The
Old Riddle and Its Newest Answer," "Science and Sci
entists," "Science and Romance."
William G. Ward has published" The Philosophy of The
ism "
in two volumes. Many articles written in the same
spirit of the Neo-Scholastics have appeared in various
Catholic periodicals, especially in The Dublin Review,
The American Catholic Quarterly Review, and The Month,the organ of the Jesuits in England.
4. The restatement of the Scholastic teachings with
adaptations to modern needs is not confined to works
written in the living languages of the present day. ManyLatin works have been published since the middle of last
century which have the spirit, if not the name, of Neo-
Scholastic philosophy. The following deserve special
mention:
DOMINICUS PALMIERI, S.J."
Institutiones Philosoph-
icse,"three volumes.
J. M. CORNOLDI, S.J." Philosophia Speculativa,"four
volumes.
From Kant to Our Own Time. 137
CARDINAL ZIGLIARA "Summa Philosophies," three
volumes.
CAJ. SANSEVERINO "Elementa Philosophise Chris-
tianse," three volumes.
G. LAHOUSSE, S. J."
Praelectiones Logicae et Metaphis-
icae," four volumes.
THEOD. MEYER, S. J."
Institutiones Juris Naturalis,"
two volumes.
TILMAN PESCH, S. J. "Praelect. Philos. Schol. Brevis
Conspectus/ four volumes.
MATTH. LIBERATORS, S. J."
Institutiones Philosoph-
icse," three volumes.
SALV. TONGIORGI, S. J."
Institutiones Philosophies,"
three volumes.
A LIST OF
SELECT WORKS ON PHILOSOPHY.
I. ALL THE WORKS MENTIONED IN N. 101.
II. AQUINAS, ST. THOMAS "Aquinas Ethicus," i.e.,
the moral teachings of St. Thomas translated and anno
tated by Joseph Rickaby, S. J.
AVELING "The God of Philosophy."
AZARIAS, BRO. "Aristotle and the Christian Church."
BALMES "European Civilization," "Fundamental Phi
losophy," "Criterion."
BOWEN, FRANCIS "Modern Philosophy from Descar
tes to Schopenhauer," often incorrect.
CATHREIN-GETTELMAN, S. J. "Socialism."
CONWAY, JAS. J., S. J. "Christian Ethics."
COPPENS, CHARLES, S. J. "Logic and Metaphysics,"
"Ethics,""Moral Principles and Medical Practice" (for
doctors) .
CORNOLDI, J. M., S. J. "The Physical System of St.
Thomas."
CORTEZ "Essays on Catholicity, Liberalism and So
cialism."
DEVAS, C. S. "The Key to the World s Progress."
DEVIVIER "
Christian Apologetics."
DE WuLF-CoFFEY " Scholasticism Old and New."
DRISCOLL, J. T." Christian Philosophy," "God."
HETTINGER " Natural Religion."
JOUIN, Louis, S. J. "Logic and Metaphysics," "Moral
Philosophy."
138
Select Works on Philosophy. 139
HILL, WALTER, S. J." Elements of Philosophy,"
" Moral Philosophy."
HOGAN, MICHAEL, S. J." Lord Bacon and Scholastic
Philosophy."
HOLAIND, R. I., S. J. "Natural Law and Legal Prac
tice."
HUGHES, THOMAS, S. J."
Anthropology and Biology."
HUMPHREY, S. J. "Conscience and Law."
JOYCE, GEORGE H., S. J."
Principles of Logic."
KLARMAN "Crux of Pastoral Medicine" (for doctors).
KRESS "Questions of Socialism and Their Answers."
LAMBERT, L. A. " Christian Science Before the Bar of
Reason."
LEO XIII. " Great Encyclical Letters, with Preface byJ. Wynne, S. J."
LEPICIER "The Unseen World" (Spiritism).
LIBERATORE, MATTH., S. J."
Political Economy."
MADDEN " Reaction from Agnosticism."
MANNING, CARD. " The Fourfold Sovereignty of God."
MERCIER, CARD. "Relation of Experimental Psychol
ogy to Philosophy," "Psychology Normal and Morbid."
MING, JOHN J., S. J." Data of Modern Ethics,"
" Char
acter and Religion of Modern Socialism."
MUCKERMAN, H., S. J. "Attitude of Catholics Toward
Darwinism," "The Humanizing of the Brute."
NEWMAN, CARD. "An Essay Toward a Grammar of
Assent."
POISSY, BRO. DE "Elementary Course of Christian
Philosophy."
POLAND, WM., S. J. "The Laws of Thought," "The
Truth of Thought," "Fundamental Ethics," "True Ped
agogics and False Ethics."
140 Select Works on Philosophy.
RAUPERT "Modern Spiritism," "The Danger of
Spiritualism."
RICKABY, Jos., S. J. "Political and Moral Essays."
RONAYNE, M., S. J. "God Knowable and Known."
SCHWICKERATH, ROB., S. J."
Jesuit Education."
SPALDING, RT. REV. J. L."
Religion, Agnosticism and
Evolution."
STANG, RT. REV. "Socialism and Christianity."
STOECKL-FINLAY "Handbook of the History of Phi
losophy."
THOMPSON, HANNA W. "The Brain and Personality."
TURNER, WM. "
History of Philosophy."
WALSH and O MALLEY "Pastoral Medicine" (for doc
tors) .
WASMANN, ERIC, S. J. "Instinct and Intelligence in the
Animal Kingdom," "Modern Biology and Evolution,""
Psychology of Ants and Higher Animals."
ALPHABETICAL INDEX.
Numbers, not pages, are referred to.
Abelard, 56, 58.
Adam Smith, 77.
Agnosticism, 19, 94.
Albert the Great, 61, 63.
Albigenses, 46.
Alcuin, 54.
Alexander of Hales, 63.
Alexandrian Schools, 4247.American Philosophers, 95.
Anaxagoras, 16.
Anaximander, 15.
Anaximenes, 15.
Anselm, St., 57.
Antisthenes, 22.
Apologists, 49.
Arabians, 61.
Ariman, 9.
Aristippus, 22.
Aristotle, 26-35, 56, 61.
Athenagoras, 50.
Atomism, 16, 76.
Augustine, St., 47, 52.
Averroes, 61.
Avincenna, 61.
Bacon, Francis, 69, 72.
Bacon, Roger, 63, 72.
Balmes, 96.
Banez, 68.
Barbarians, 52, 54.
Bede, Ven., 52.
Bentham, 92.
Berkeley, 79.
Bernard, St., 60.
Bessarion, 68.
Boehme, 70.
Boethius, 52, 56.
Bonaventure, St., 63.
Boscovich, 96.
Brahmanism, 6.
Brownson, 95.
Bruno, 68.
Buddhism, 7.
Cabanis, 78.
Cajetan, 68.
Cassiodorus, 52.
Cerinthus, 46.
Champeau, William of, 56.
Charlemagne, 54.
Charron, 68.
Chartres, 51.
Chinese Philosophy, 10.
Cicero, 41.
Clement of Alexandria, 50.
Comte, 91.
Conceptualism, 64.
Condillac, 78.
Confucius, 10.
Cornoldi, 101.
Cousin, 90.
Critical School, 96.
Alphabetical Index. 143
Lactantius, 50.
Lahousse, 101.
La Mettrie, 78.
Lao-tse, 10.
Leibnitz, 79.
Leusippus, 16.
Liberatore, 101.
Lipsius, 68.
Locke, 76.
Lombard, 59.
Lucretius, 41.
Machiavelli, 71.
Mahatmas, 9.
Maher, 101.
Mahometans, 61.
Maimonides, 62.
Malebranche, 74.
Mandeville, 77.
Manes, 46.
Manicheans, 46.
Marcion, 46.
Marcus Aurelius, 41.
Mansel, 88.
Masonic Light, 11, 45.
Matter and Form, 30, 98.
McCosh, 95.
Medonta, 66.
Melchior Cano, 68.
Melissus, 18.
Mercier, 99, 100.
Metempsychosis, 0.
Meyer, 101.
Mill, 92.
Mirandola, 68.
Mirecourt, 66.
Mivart, 94, 101.
Monads, 79.
Monarchianism, 49.
Montaigne, 68.
More, Bl. Thorn., 71.
Mysteries, 11.
Mysticism, 60, 63, 64, 70.
Nature Worship, 11.
Neo-Platonism, 47.
Neo-Scholasticism, 97-101.
Newman, 94.
Nicene Council, 51.
Nihilism, 7.
Nirvana, 7, 8.
Nominalism, 56, 64.
Occasionalism, 74.
Ocham, 65.
Olympiodorus, 47.
Ontologism, 74.
Origen, 50.
Ormuzd, 9.
Osiris, 11.
Palmieri, 101.
Pantheism, 6, 61, 75, 76, 83, 85.
Paracelsus, 68.
Parmenides, 18.
Patristic Philosophy, 49.
Pedagogy, 86.
Persian Systems, 9.
Pesch, 101.
Phenomenalism, 79.
Philo, 44.
Philoponus, 47.
Plato, 23.
Plotinus, 46.
Political Philosophy, 24, 35, 71, 76.
Porphyry, 47.
Positivism, 91.
Priestley, 92.
Primitive Teachings, 2, 9.
Protagoras, 19.
Protestantism, 70.
Pseudo-Dionysius, 52.
Pyrrho, 39.
Pythagoras, 17.
Rationalism, 48.
Raymond Lully, 63.
144 Alphabetical Index.
Realism, 64.
Reformation, 70.
Reid, 88.
Renaissance, 67, 72.
Rickaby, 101.
Roman Philosophers, 41.
Roscelin, 56.
Rosmini, 96.
Rousseau, 78.
Ruysbroek, 66.
Sakja-Muni, 7.
Sanseverino, 101.
Scepticism, 19, 39, 68.
Schelling, 84.
Schlegel, 2.
Scholasticism, 53, 64, 97, 98.
Schools, 53-55, 64.
Schopenhauer, 87.
Scotists, 64.
Scottish Philosophers, 88.
Scotus Erigena, 54.
Seneca, 41.
Sensism, 76, 78.
Sentences, Book of, 59.
Septuagint, 43.
Seven Sages, 12.
Shaftesbury, 77.
Social Contract, 71, 78.
Socialism, 91.
Sociology, 91.
Socrates, 21.
Sophists, 19.
Spencer, 94.
Spinoza, 75.
Stoeckl, 4.
Stoics, 37.
Stonyhurst Series, 101.
St. Simon, 91.
Stuart, 88.
Suarez, 68.
Talmudists, 45.
Tatian, 50.
Tauler, 66.
Tertullian, 50.
Thales, 15.
Theophilus, 50.
Theosophy, 8.
Thomas Aquinas, St., 61, 63.
Thomists, 64.
Tongiorgi, 101.
Traditionalism, 89.
Transcendentalism, 84, 95.
Tyndall, 94.
Universals, 56.
Universities, 63.
Upham, 95.
Varro, 41.
Vasquez, 68.
Victorines, 60.
Vincent of Beauvais, 63.
Voltaire, 78.
Wallace, 94.
Ward, 101.
Weigel, 70.
William of Champeau, 58.
William of Paris, 63.
Word, The, 57.
World-Soul, 23, 25.
Xenophanes, 18.
Zeno of Elea, 18.
Zeno the Stoic, 37.
Zigliara, 101.
Zoroaster, 9.
A BRIEF TEXT-BOOK OF
LOGIC AND MENTAL PHILOSOPHYBY REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S.J.
"The Stonyhurst Manuals gave decided proof that it was possible to make the study of logic, as well as metaphysics, popular andaccessible to those who did not read the language of St. Thomasand the Schools. Nevertheless, the Stonyhurst Manuals were nottext-books for the student. They helped him to an easier masteryof the practical value of the study in philosophy, but they were not
digested for the study in school. Father Coppens has gone further.
He has ventured to give us a school text which gathers into a small
compass the concise definitions, principles, and rules found in standard class books, such as Liberatore, Zigliara,Van der Aa, and others of
equal authority. . . . Father Coppens book will be a safe, a verysafe guide, and a very easy one, considering the subject-matter, for
young students of philosophy. Their Latin text-books will be betterunderstood and appreciated for this help, of which we urge everyonewho may begin the study of philosophy to avail himself at once.
Indeed, we have not the slightest misgiving that the small manualwill prove a most valuable aid both to those who pursue the twoyears course, and much more to others who can devote onlyone year to it, or who, having failed in the thorough mastery of a
system of philosophy heretofore, are anxious to supply the loss at
the least possible cost of time and severe application." AmericanEcclesiastical Review.
"Father Coppens, we think, has produced a book which will meetall the requirements of the English student of philosophy. It embodies a thorough course of Logic and Metaphysics, expressed in
clear, concise language, and is printed with a care for those details
division of questions, diversity of type, accentuation of paragraphs,etc. which go to make up a text-book, and cannot fail to arrest
and fix the attention of the reader. Needless to say, the Encyclicalof the Holy Father has been the inspiration of the learned author,and the philosophy of St. Thomas permeates the whole work. Wefeel assured it will meet with a hearty welcome in all our schools
and colleges." Ave Maria.
"I received from your publisher your admirable work on Logicand Mental Philosophy. It is just the work needed at the presenttime, and I earnestly recommend its use in our colleges." P. J.
RYAN, Archbishop of Philadelphia.
"Your book on Logic and Metaphysics is an admirable text
book." J. L. SPALDING, Bishop of Peoria.
A BRIEF TEXT-BOOK OF
MORAL PHILOSOPHYBY REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S.J.
"This volume may be described as a primer of the best kind. It
covers the whole ground of doctrinal ethics. It is brief, while at
the same time invariably clear. In statement it is exact without
pedantry, in method it is scholastic, but neither tedious nor anti
quated. Examples from daily life and topics of current discussion
are everywhere introduced to give reality and animation to thetreatment. . . . The secret of his success is to be found in his choice
of materials and in their judicious employment. . . . To those whodesire precise and intelligent statement of the doctrines held byall Catholic philosophers, on almost every point of moral philos
ophy, and in particular on those topics about which controversy is
so earnest at the present moment, this little treatise will be veryacceptable. A novel feature of the book is the terse manner in
which objections are stated and dealt with." Dublin Review.
"The excellent text-book of Father Coppens we esteem veryhighly and use very frequently in our literary work." ARTHURPREUSS.
THE ART OF ORATORICAL COMPOSITIONBASED ON THE PRECEPTS AND MODELS OF THE GREAT MASTERS
BY REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S.J.
"It is a clear, didactic exposition, with such illustrations frommodern sources as will make it practical under our circumstances.But it is also a text-book, which is saying something apart from its
general merits, as teachers will understand. . . . Least of all hasFather Coppens reason to guard himself against distrust, for he
simply proves his strength by the grasp he has of the masters in his
profession. . . . For seminaries, we find here the .entire course from
preparatory school to the class of sacred eloquence in theology."-
American Catholic Quarterly Review.
"Father Coppens has been, over twenty-five years, a Professor of
Oratory in the United States, so that he brings to this book not onlythe full equipment of a master of the art, but all the invaluable skill
in imparting his knowledge to be acquired only, and after long trial,
in the rostrum of the teacher. Father Coppens is perhaps the mostpractical class book on the speaker s art yet offered to Americanschools. . . . Father Coppens, wherever it is practicable, lets the
acknowledged masters of oratorical composition speak for themselves, so that his pupil is made familiar, and in their own words,with the leading precepts of the great writers on oratory among boththe ancients and moderns." Catholic World.
A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION TO
ENGLISH RHETORICPRECEPTS AND EXERCISES
Br REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S.J.
This work is modestly called by the author an Introduction,
but it is in reality a thorough treatise on rhetoric and poetry. As
a text-book for Catholic colleges and academies, it has no rival in
the English language. Its value, from a literary point of view, is
of the highest order, and it is the only rhetoric published in the
United States, in England, or in Ireland that even attempts to give
an extensive criticism of standard literature from a Catholic stand
point.
Speaking of the "Rhetoric," Very Rev. Rudolph Meyer, S.J.,
said: "The best thing I ever did for education was to urge Father
Coppens to publish that book."
"We have taken some of the most popular and approved text
books in use in our best schools and compared them with this new
Introduction to English Rhetoric. The result is in\ every wayand in some parts to an exceptional degree favorable to the latter."
American Catholic Quarterly Review.
"We are happy to add another to the list of text-books for
Catholic schools of which one can write only in terms of unqualified
praise. Its author, the Rev. Charles Coppens, S.J., is already well
known through his admirable Art of Oratorical Composition. His
two books, taken together, contain the entire course of rhetoric
as studied in colleges and universities. But the Practical Intro
duction to English Rhetoric, taken alone, must have a far wider
sphere of usefulness, being perfectly adapted for the higher depart
ments of academies for girls, and for the use of the teachers them
selves in the lower departments of schools for either sex, or in
schools where so extended a course of rhetoric does not enter into
the plan of study." The Pilot.